Python is readable

Albert van der Horst albert at
Thu Mar 29 15:44:25 CEST 2012

In article <mailman.896.1332440814.3037.python-list at>,
Nathan Rice  <nathan.alexander.rice at> wrote:
>I read that article a long time ago, it was bullshit then, it is
>bullshit now.  The only thing he gets right is that the Shannon
>information of a uniquely specified program is proportional to the
>code that would be required to generate it.  Never mind that if a

Thank you for drawing my attention to that article.
It attacks the humbug software architects.
Are you one of them?
I really liked that article.

>program meets a specification, you shouldn't care about any of the
>values used for unspecified parts of the program.  If you care about
>the values, they should be specified.  So, if Joel had said that the
>program was uniquely specified, or that none of the things that
>weren't specified require values in the programming language, he might
>have been kinda, sorta right.  Of course, nobody cares enough to
>specify every last bit of minutiae in a program, and specifications
>change, so it is pretty much impossible to imagine either case ever
>actually occurring.

I wonder if you're not talking about a different article.


Groetjes Albert

Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert at spe&ar& &=n

More information about the Python-list mailing list