undefined | Better HN

0 pointsMikhail_Edoshin3mo ago0 comments

Good code should not be immediately understandable. Machines that do pasta do not look like humans that do pasta. Same for code; good code does things in a machine way and it won't look natural.

Example: convert RGB to HSV. If you look around for a formula, you'll likely find one that starts so:

    cmin = min(r, g, b);
    cmax = max(r, g, b);

Looks very natural to a human. Thing is, as we compute 'cmin', we'll also compute or almost compute 'cmax', so if we rewrite this for a machine, we should merge these two into something that will be way less clear on the first glance. Yet it will be better and make fewer actions (the rest of the conversion is even more interesting, but won't fit into a comment).

0 comments

zahlman3mo ago

Recognizing that sort of opportunity is why we have optimizing compilers and intrinsics.

Funny thing: in Python code I've had a few occasions where I needed both quotient and remainder of an integer division, so naturally I used `divmod` which under the hood can exploit the exact sort of overlap you describe. I get the impression that relatively few Python programmers are familiar with `divmod` despite it being a builtin. But also it really doesn't end up mattering anyway once you have to slog through all the object-indirection and bytecode-interpretation overhead. (It seems that it's actually slower given the overhead of looking up and calling a function. But I actually feel like invoking `divmod` is more intention-revealing.)

lucketone3mo ago

In short your stance is to sacrifice readability for performance.

Legit in some cases. But for usual business software, code is for humans (compiler will make machine code intended for the machine)

Mikhail_EdoshinOP3mo ago

Readability belongs to documentation. Code should have certain technical aesthetic, it should be easy to navigate it, but why its operation should be obvious more than that of any complex mechanism? Nobody demands a mechanical watch to be readable or have meaningful names for the parts.

It is not just performance. A minimal component gives you flexibility: you may make the whole system performant or you may trade extra performance to reach a different goal, such as robustness or composability. It is a more fundamental principle, common to construction in general: a thing should do all it has to do and should not do anything more.

lucketone3mo ago

Optimisation usually sacrifices some flexibility and/or robustness.

Valid if needed, but exists

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsMikhail_Edoshin3mo ago0 comments

Good code should not be immediately understandable. Machines that do pasta do not look like humans that do pasta. Same for code; good code does things in a machine way and it won't look natural.

Example: convert RGB to HSV. If you look around for a formula, you'll likely find one that starts so:

    cmin = min(r, g, b);
    cmax = max(r, g, b);

0 comments

zahlman3mo ago

Recognizing that sort of opportunity is why we have optimizing compilers and intrinsics.

lucketone3mo ago

In short your stance is to sacrifice readability for performance.

Legit in some cases. But for usual business software, code is for humans (compiler will make machine code intended for the machine)

Mikhail_EdoshinOP3mo ago

lucketone3mo ago

Optimisation usually sacrifices some flexibility and/or robustness.

Valid if needed, but exists

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse