[pbalcer]

Readable code is code that has empathy for the reader and tries to minimize the cognitive load of interpreting it. That's one of the goals of abstraction layers and design patterns.

Yes, it's all subjective, and depends on the reader's expertise and existing familiarity with the codebase. But arguing that code readability isn't at thing, because it's subjective, is an absurd take. Would you claim that Joyce's Ulysses is equally readable as Seuss's The Cat in the Hat?

[PickledChris]

I see this argument pattern a lot, so looked into what the name is. Apparently it's called Sorites paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox or the "continuum fallacy" in which something that's continuous is dismissed as not existing because we can't divide it into clear categories.

[kaffekaka]

Did someone claim readability does not exist?

[osigurdson]

>> Readable code is code that has empathy for the reader and tries to minimize the cognitive load of interpreting it. That's one of the goals of abstraction layers and design patterns.

Usually that means something less than "perfect" from the perspective of the writer. Applying to much DRY, SOLID, DI and other "best practices" will make it very hard to understand. Pretend you have about 20 less IQ points than you actually have when writing the code - you will thank yourself when you come back to it.

[pepoluan]

Reminds me of someone's quote:

> Reading -- and understanding -- code requires twice the brainpower of writing code. So if you used every bit of your intelligence to write 'clever' code, you won't be able to maintain it because it requires twice your intelligence to read it again.

Einstein's words are oh so suitable as well:

> Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

[bcrosby95]

The trap people fall into is calling The Cat in the Hat unreadable compared to Joyce's Ulysses because The Cat in the Hat they're reading is written in German and all they understand is English.

[mojuba]

I didn't say readability is subjective. I'm just asking, when someone says "code should be readable" without any clarifications, what does it really mean?

Big companies may actually have an answer to that: "since we require at least 2 years of experience in the area from new hires, all code should be readable at that level".

However startups may prioritize something else over readability at that level, for example: move fast, produce the most minimalist code that would be easy to maintain for people like you.

My point being, "code should be readable" should always come at least with a footnote that defines the context.