šŸ’¾ Archived View for splint.rs ā€ŗ banal_code.gmi captured on 2024-07-08 at 23:55:33. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

ā¬…ļø Previous capture (2024-05-26)

šŸš§ View Differences

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

"Code Checkers Make You Boring"

I canā€™t stand coding helpers which suggest auto-completions, and this is why.

When the spelling checker came along, it helped writing a great deal. Nobody wants the job of looking up how to spell words. Then one dark day, I wrote a twisted sentence, subverting some standard English phrase in order to emphasise a point or make a joke, and blue (not red, but blue) squiggly lines appeared under my phrase. A right-click informed me that Microsoft or Google or whatever suggested I change the phrase back to the standard. The machine clearly hadnā€™t understood the genius linguistic flourish. I dismissed the prompt with contempt, but I donā€™t think everyone else will dismiss it so quickly. Anyone less secure in their writing could see those blue wiggly lines, and decide to return to the ā€˜properā€™ (i.e. ā€˜normalā€™, i.e. ā€˜boringā€™) sentence structure.

Style-checkers fix bad writing at the cost of good writing. They make writing ā€˜just okayā€™.

Code helpers help writing code a lot. I like vimā€™s in-built completion, and the various type-checkers obviously save a lot of headaches. I worry specifically about computers suggesting what kind of function to use, or even suggesting that a function should come next. I think subversive flourishes (clearly written, well-commented, and perfectly documented in triplicate) are worth the cost of some bad code. Actually, I also want to value the bad code - if nothing else, it forces the writer to ask why this code feels bad.