Why do opensource hackers write obfuscated code?

iroiso.posterous.com

2 points·Iroiso··4 comments

I'd replace the outer list comprehension with filter() but otherwise the code doesn't look "obfuscated" or even ugly. The alternatives would be map and lambda or expand into a for-block, both of which are less aesthetic from my point of view.

Is that obfuscated? Or just poorly written? There's a difference. 'Obfuscated' means it was intentionally unreadable.

I don't think they are obfuscating their code. I think they are writing code that looks good to them at the time. They think it's beautiful for some reason, and leave it that way.

Ideally, beautiful code should be readable by others, of course. Especially in Open Source. But some people don't think like that.

It's a play on words. Obviously the authors of that code weren't making a real attempt at obfuscation, but they did so unintentionally. I've observed this myself plenty of times, and it's not limited to open source.

Programmers earn their paycheck (literally and figuratively speaking) by being smart. Hence, programmers value smarts.

I don't read nearly as much Python as I do Ruby, so when I speak, I'm speaking of the Ruby I've read. Ruby programmers use a lot of clever idioms. In a lot of cases, they make things more intuitive. In other cases, they make you scratch your head and wonder just what the hell is going on. This is usually a case where a programmer has picked up an idiom that they found clever, then used it in a scenario where the code actually becomes less clear. This is what the author is pointing out.

Then perhaps the author should take his own advice. Using words to mean what you want instead of what everyone else means isn't a good way to get your point across. It's even worse than bad code, since it's deliberately wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com