Have you ever tried Literate Programming en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literate_pro... ? I like the idea, but then I'm reminded of the joke, "Make it possible for programmers to write programs in plain English, and you will find that [many] programmers cannot write plain English."
Well the implementation is old but the concept is good and I use it in my own visual programming tool. In it I mixed all concepts that I find USEFULL because I'm doing the guinea pig on itself (eating own dog food) with a code base that has reached already 45000 lines of javascript for a figma plugin that is huge (generally an already big plugin is like 2000 lines of code).
I've not tried formally literate programming no. I was inspired by the idea when it first crossed my eyes a few months ago because I (and many others I am sure) invented a similar idea in the 1980s. It was born of entry into the IT sector faced with legacy code (FORTAN IV) written in such an obtuse manner that it was black boxed for many years since no-one game to touch it as they could not understand it and there was no regression testing infrastructure in place either.
I rewrote code like that in the more modern FORTRAN 77 of the time and established a pattern of code files that had more English in them than code. Extensive internal documentation that often had a paragraph describing the raison d'etre of a single line of code.
At the time the Usenet was the thing (pre-web and much of the academic world connected on dial-up links still) and there was a string of jokes in a group call rec.humor.funny that had the proforma: A bad X does A and a good X does B.
In the day the buzz language was C and so I submitted something that ran a bit like: The bad programmer writes code in C and documents it in English, the good programmer writes code in English and documents in C.
It was published in a paper anthology of rec.humor.funny quotes one year too, though I can't recall when but here's a candidate (I might have to try get that and see):
Have you ever tried Literate Programming en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literate_pro... ? I like the idea, but then I'm reminded of the joke, "Make it possible for programmers to write programs in plain English, and you will find that [many] programmers cannot write plain English."
Well the implementation is old but the concept is good and I use it in my own visual programming tool. In it I mixed all concepts that I find USEFULL because I'm doing the guinea pig on itself (eating own dog food) with a code base that has reached already 45000 lines of javascript for a figma plugin that is huge (generally an already big plugin is like 2000 lines of code).
I've not tried formally literate programming no. I was inspired by the idea when it first crossed my eyes a few months ago because I (and many others I am sure) invented a similar idea in the 1980s. It was born of entry into the IT sector faced with legacy code (FORTAN IV) written in such an obtuse manner that it was black boxed for many years since no-one game to touch it as they could not understand it and there was no regression testing infrastructure in place either.
I rewrote code like that in the more modern FORTRAN 77 of the time and established a pattern of code files that had more English in them than code. Extensive internal documentation that often had a paragraph describing the raison d'etre of a single line of code.
At the time the Usenet was the thing (pre-web and much of the academic world connected on dial-up links still) and there was a string of jokes in a group call rec.humor.funny that had the proforma: A bad X does A and a good X does B.
In the day the buzz language was C and so I submitted something that ran a bit like: The bad programmer writes code in C and documents it in English, the good programmer writes code in English and documents in C.
It was published in a paper anthology of rec.humor.funny quotes one year too, though I can't recall when but here's a candidate (I might have to try get that and see):
netfunny.com/inetjoke.html
but might have been something else I'm remembering too.
"Well the implementation is old but the concept is good and I use it" - what implementation is that you're referring to?