The blog post "What makes code hard to read: Visual patterns of complexity" explores how visual patterns in code impact readability, arguing that complexity isn't solely about logic but also visual structure. It identifies several patterns that hinder readability: deep nesting (excessive indentation), wide lines forcing horizontal scrolling, fragmented logic scattered across the screen, and inconsistent indentation disrupting vertical scanning. The author advocates for writing "calm" code, characterized by shallow nesting, narrow code blocks, localized logic, and consistent formatting, allowing developers to quickly grasp the overall structure and flow of the code. The post uses Python examples to illustrate these patterns and demonstrates how refactoring can significantly improve visual clarity, even without altering functionality.
The blog post "Effective AI code suggestions: less is more" argues that shorter, more focused AI code suggestions are more beneficial to developers than large, complete code blocks. While large suggestions might seem helpful at first glance, they're often harder to understand, integrate, and verify, disrupting the developer's flow. Smaller suggestions, on the other hand, allow developers to maintain control and understanding of their code, facilitating easier integration and debugging. This approach promotes learning and empowers developers to build upon the AI's suggestions rather than passively accepting large, opaque code chunks. The post further emphasizes the importance of providing context to the AI through clear prompts and selecting the appropriate suggestion size for the specific task.
HN commenters generally agree with the article's premise that smaller, more focused AI code suggestions are more helpful than large, complex ones. Several users point out that this mirrors good human code review practices, emphasizing clarity and avoiding large, disruptive changes. Some commenters discuss the potential for LLMs to improve in suggesting smaller changes by better understanding context and intent. One commenter expresses skepticism, suggesting that LLMs fundamentally lack the understanding to suggest good code changes, and argues for focusing on tools that improve code comprehension instead. Others mention the usefulness of LLMs for generating boilerplate or repetitive code, even if larger suggestions are less effective for complex tasks. There's also a brief discussion of the importance of unit tests in mitigating the risk of incorporating incorrect AI-generated code.
Interruptions significantly hinder software engineers, especially during cognitively demanding tasks like programming and debugging. The impact isn't just the time lost to the interruption itself, but also the time required to regain focus and context, which can take substantial time depending on the task's complexity. While interruptions are sometimes unavoidable, minimizing them, especially during deep work periods, can drastically improve developer productivity and code quality. Effective strategies include blocking off focused time, using asynchronous communication methods, and batching similar tasks together.
HN commenters generally agree with the article's premise that interruptions are detrimental to developer productivity, particularly for complex tasks. Some share personal anecdotes and strategies for mitigating interruptions, like using the Pomodoro Technique or blocking off focus time. A few suggest that the study's methodology might be flawed due to its small sample size and reliance on self-reporting. Others point out that certain types of interruptions, like urgent bug fixes, are unavoidable and sometimes even beneficial for breaking through mental blocks. A compelling thread discusses the role of company culture in minimizing disruptions, emphasizing the importance of asynchronous communication and respect for deep work. Some argue that the "maker's schedule" isn't universally applicable and that some developers thrive in more interrupt-driven environments.
Summary of Comments ( 272 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43330900
HN commenters largely agree with the article's premise that visual complexity hinders code readability. Several highlight the importance of consistency in formatting and indentation, noting how deviations create visual noise that distracts from the code's logic. Some discuss specific patterns mentioned in the article, like deep nesting and arrow anti-patterns, offering personal anecdotes and suggesting mitigation strategies like extracting functions or using guard clauses. Others expand on the article's points by mentioning the cognitive load imposed by inconsistent naming conventions and the helpfulness of visual aids like syntax highlighting and code folding. A few commenters offer alternative perspectives, arguing that while visual complexity can be a symptom of deeper issues, it isn't the root cause of hard-to-read code. They emphasize the importance of clear logic and good design over purely visual aspects. There's also discussion around the subjective nature of code readability and the challenge of defining objective metrics for it.
The Hacker News post titled "What makes code hard to read: Visual patterns of complexity (2023)" linking to an article on seeinglogic.com has generated a moderate number of comments, many of which engage thoughtfully with the article's premise.
Several commenters agree with the article's focus on visual patterns as a key factor in code readability. One commenter points out that the article effectively highlights how "jagged" code, characterized by inconsistent indentation and irregular line lengths, significantly impacts readability and can make it difficult to parse the code's structure at a glance. They emphasize that even with syntactically correct code, these visual inconsistencies can introduce cognitive overhead.
Another commenter echoes this sentiment, adding that the article resonates with their own experience. They mention struggling with codebases that lack visual consistency and appreciate the article's clear articulation of this often overlooked aspect of code quality. They further suggest that tools that help enforce consistent visual patterns, such as linters and formatters, can be invaluable in improving maintainability and reducing cognitive load.
Some commenters delve deeper into the specific visual patterns discussed in the article. One commenter discusses the concept of "arrow anti-patterns," where deeply nested conditional logic creates a visual "arrow" shape in the code, making it difficult to follow the flow of execution. They agree with the article's recommendation of refactoring such code to flatten the structure and improve readability.
Another commenter brings up the importance of vertical density and how excessively long blocks of code without sufficient whitespace can hinder readability. They concur with the article's suggestion of breaking down large blocks into smaller, more manageable chunks to enhance visual clarity. They also suggest the judicious use of comments to further guide the reader's understanding.
A few commenters offer additional perspectives beyond the scope of the article. One commenter suggests that while visual patterns are important, cognitive complexity also plays a significant role in code readability. They argue that code with complex logic, even if visually well-structured, can still be challenging to understand. Another commenter mentions the role of domain knowledge and how familiarity with the problem domain can significantly impact one's ability to comprehend the code.
While there is general agreement on the importance of visual patterns in code readability, one commenter expresses a slightly dissenting view, arguing that excessive focus on visual aesthetics can sometimes come at the expense of functionality. They suggest that prioritizing clear and concise logic should be the primary goal, with visual patterns playing a secondary role.
Overall, the comments on the Hacker News post generally endorse the article's focus on visual readability patterns and provide further insights and perspectives on the topic. The discussion highlights the importance of visual consistency, the impact of specific anti-patterns, and the relationship between visual structure and cognitive complexity. While some nuances and alternative viewpoints are presented, the overall sentiment reinforces the value of considering visual patterns when striving for readable and maintainable code.