What does code readability mean? (2018)
Not going to criticize the article much, because the author is right - sometimes I just don’t like the code&#x2F;style, so it’s just harder to relate to, not that it is actually hard to understand.<p>But there is a single “case” I’d never agree on: the code whose complexity and&#x2F;or composition ends with nothing. The more experience you get, the more high-level structure you are able to pick on, but sometimes structures are just there, serving nothing at all. Overzealous (or compelled) decomposition into 5-line chunks over tens of files. Pointless renaming, re-exporting and encapsulation. Higher-order code golf. All this done to a finished non-extensible project makes no sense and makes it harder to read, for no reason.<p>This is a lenghty article, but it is readable in one chunk, a good piece of read. Now imagine the author split it into a number of submodules, then in each they’d give a new name to every phenomenon. Then instead of using English they’d construct a new sub-language (also in modules) to express meaning in a shorter way. E.g. this:<p><pre><code>  I can’t read the code because I don’t have sufficient experience or expertise (with the language or domain).
  I haven’t spent enough time trying to read and understand the code (“it’s not obvious” or “it’s not intuitive”).
  I don’t have much interest in understanding this code, I prefer to rewrite it in my own style.
  …
</code></pre>
turns into this:<p><pre><code>  With code as object, let me as you negating:
    frobnicate causality of read object over sufficient experience or expertise (with the language or domain).
    frobnicate relation of enough time and attempt to read and understand object (“it’s obvious” or “it’s intuitive”).
    have much interest in understanding object, no prefer to rewrite it in my own style. &#x2F;&#x2F; “no” negates negation
    include more items from [here|https:&#x2F;&#x2F;…]. 
  See frobnicate in my frobnication article.</code></pre>