Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: Overuse of 'auto' Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2022 01:11:49 -0800 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 89 Message-ID: <87fsdju0q2.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> References: <69e27519-337d-4891-9af3-0cccced7b6abn@googlegroups.com> <87tu2479qc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87sfhktr6s.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="3ff48156ba03619b1b817f52b89d4424"; logging-data="2615380"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19qkdTJpUQ6Zr1nzIKcRVZw" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:sN2ru5wsBlpVnnqzzC52w28Z7s0= sha1:AVTNg7pEdxios6ReErXhZgdZZsQ= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c++:87859 Juha Nieminen writes: > Keith Thompson wrote: >> Juha Nieminen writes: >>> David Brown wrote: >>>>>> This is especially true given that >>>>>> full types in C++ can regularly take more than a single line to write out. >>>>> >>>>> There we go again with the brevity argument. >>>> >>>> If you can't see the wood for the trees, the code is unhelpfully >>>> long-winded. >>> >>> I don't think you understand. >>> >>> The driving principle in writing code should be "this makes it easier to >>> understand", not "this makes it shorter". >> >> I think he *does* understand, but he disagrees. >> >> It's easy to assume that someone can only disagree with you because they >> don't understand what you're saying. > > I didn't actually meant that he didn't understand what I was saying. > My choice of words was poor. I meant it more like "you are missing the > point". I doubt that he his, but I'll refrain from further attempts to speak for him. >>>>> Keep your code smart, not stupid. >>>> >>>> KISS means "Keep it simple, stupid" - not "Keep it stupid". >>> >>> I suppose you choose to insult your readers then, rather than the second S >>> referring to the code itself. >> >> The acronym "KISS" definitely expands to "Keep it simple, stupid", and >> has since 1960. Nobody here chose what it means. > > I know perfectly well what it expands to, and I still maintain that if you > deliberately want to interpret it as the "stupid" referring to the person > that the sentiment is directed to, it's insulting. I don't care if that's > exactly what it originally meant. If it was originally insulting, then it's > still insulting. I don't even understand what the person who came up with > it was thinking. No wonder there are myriads of alternatives that replace > the "stupid" with something less offensive. That's a valid opinion, but plenty of people use the term, knowing exactly what it means, without meaning to be insulting. It's humor, which can be a very individual thing. I understand that you find it offensive. Please understand that others find it more humorous than offensive, even understanding what it means. If someone directly calls me stupid, I'll be insulted. But as part of a well known saying that's been around for decades, it's different in ways I'm not sure I can explain. And I'm at least as likely to apply it to myself as to others. See also RTFM. > I kind of give the benefit of the doubt to the original author of the > acronym and prefer to interpret it as it referring to keeping the thing > "simple and stupid", rather than keeping the thing "simple" and calling > the person "stupid". (If this is the interpretation, then "keeping the > thing stupid" would mean something like "don't try to make it too clever > for its own good". After all "stupid" and "simple" can be thought of > as synonyms.) It's not at all plausible that Kelly Johnson, cited as the originator of the term, meant "simple and stupid". It's 100% clear that the word "simple" refers to the thing and "stupid" refers to the person being spoken to (implying that they're stupid for not designing the thing to be simple). Again, I understand if you find that insulting, but it's a form of humor that a lot of us find amusing and inoffensive. >>> Either way, I'd rather code be readable and understandable than simple. >> >> If those goals conflict, I agree. They very often do not conflict. > > When "simple" is interpreted as "short" (eg. using just one word > instead of three) then quite often they are in conflict, especially > when speaking about code. I don't think anyone is arguing that brevity is the only thing that contributes to simplicity. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com Working, but not speaking, for XCOM Labs void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */