Hacker News Reader

I don't think I disagree on any of this, but is there any actionable advice in this post? I don't think I really understand what point the author tries to make.

Maybe it's advocating against overly clever but inscrutable code, but I think clean code does that better. Yes, "clean code" is underspecified, but so is CRISP. And I can turn that opening argument right around: who wants to write incorrect, unreadable, idiosyncratic, complicated or slow code?

View on HN

I think it's a question of relative priorities.

> I don't think I disagree on any of this, but is there any actionable advice in this post?

I also think this article was buzzword-inspired and has no substance beyond that point. I mean, do you need a buzzword to argue you need to write correct code, readable code, idiomatic code, simple, and performant? It borders on the vaccuous nonsense.

Say what you want about Clean Code, but at least each and every single recommendation is actionable, has clear guidelines, a rationale, and verifiable output. This CRISP nonsense has none of that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com