Only when you have attempted it once will you really be able to give it a good shot the second time (if not the third). The first time we try and tackle a problem we don’t really understand it 100% nor know of all the possible points of failure. Iteration is the future!

It’s a shame that it’s rare to stumble across such pieces of code

Only when you have attempted it once will you really be able to give it a good shot the second time (if not the third). The first time we try and tackle a problem we don’t really understand it 100% nor know of all the possible points of failure. Iteration is the future!

It’s a shame that it’s rare to stumble across such pieces of code

Wouldn’t you agree it’s really presence of mind by the author? The code shows that the author has given it much thought. Really good code you look at first and think, oh, I would not have done it like that. Then you realize the author of the code has already worked through your mistakes and did it that way as a result of much contemplation.

That’s why the very best code is almost always the product of a second effort. Usually it’s that rewrite and cleanup that really nails it, cuts half the lines out and avoids trying to do things the object really shouldn’t be handling.

Wouldn’t you agree it’s really presence of mind by the author? The code shows that the author has given it much thought. Really good code you look at first and think, oh, I would not have done it like that. Then you realize the author of the code has already worked through your mistakes and did it that way as a result of much contemplation.

That’s why the very best code is almost always the product of a second effort. Usually it’s that rewrite and cleanup that really nails it, cuts half the lines out and avoids trying to do things the object really shouldn’t be handling.

Yes, the double negative is sufficiently obtuse.

If you’re talking about the title of the post then I don’t agree There is a subtle but important difference between “Writing Intuitive Code” and “Not Writing Unintuitive Code”. The point: it’s easier to explain what’s not intuitive rather than what is. Intuition varies a lot, but most people can agree on a lowest common denominator when it comes to being bad/unintuitive.

Yes, the double negative is sufficiently obtuse.

If you’re talking about the title of the post then I don’t agree There is a subtle but important difference between “Writing Intuitive Code” and “Not Writing Unintuitive Code”. The point: it’s easier to explain what’s not intuitive rather than what is. Intuition varies a lot, but most people can agree on a lowest common denominator when it comes to being bad/unintuitive.

If you want to write intuitive code, think about what you are doing. See the big picture.

Imagine being so literal minded you think “object oriented programming” means using a tool like Codesmith to generate a thousand objects, each a type specific class representing an object in your application, each tied to another thousand lines of autogenerated code to select, insert and update your object in the DBS. Is it possible to move farther away from good code without losing the topical appearance of providing the requested solution.

“Bossman, you said you wanted a financial application and you listed 100 types of data in your spec, so I generated 100 objects all with data access routines, then generated all the front end pages with Ironspeed. My mom thought I should go into dentistry, but I heard there was more money in this IT thingamajiggy. I don’t seem to actually be able to force my brain to think about the problem, but that doesn’t mean I can’t have a rich and rewarding career in IT by just pushing this generate button until my index finger collapses from strain injury. By the time people figure out I can’t actually code, I’ll be up for retirement. That works for me.”

Code Generators / Intuitive Code Design =
AntiMatter / Matter. They are diametrical opposites. That’s why I mentioned them.

If you want to write intuitive code, think about what you are doing. See the big picture.

Imagine being so literal minded you think “object oriented programming” means using a tool like Codesmith to generate a thousand objects, each a type specific class representing an object in your application, each tied to another thousand lines of autogenerated code to select, insert and update your object in the DBS. Is it possible to move farther away from good code without losing the topical appearance of providing the requested solution.

“Bossman, you said you wanted a financial application and you listed 100 types of data in your spec, so I generated 100 objects all with data access routines, then generated all the front end pages with Ironspeed. My mom thought I should go into dentistry, but I heard there was more money in this IT thingamajiggy. I don’t seem to actually be able to force my brain to think about the problem, but that doesn’t mean I can’t have a rich and rewarding career in IT by just pushing this generate button until my index finger collapses from strain injury. By the time people figure out I can’t actually code, I’ll be up for retirement. That works for me.”

Code Generators / Intuitive Code Design =
AntiMatter / Matter. They are diametrical opposites. That’s why I mentioned them.

So in short, your point was:

Another way of avoiding unintuitive code is to not use code generators.

Is that about right?