TITLE: Code Should Speak for Itself
AUTHOR: Eugene Wallingford
DATE: September 05, 2013  3:13 PM
DESC: 
-----
BODY:
Matt Welsh recently posted
<A HREF="http://matt-welsh.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/rewriting-large-production-system-in-go.html">
   a blog entry</A>
on experiences rewriting a large system in Go and some of his
thoughts about the language afterwards.  One of the few
shortcomings in his mind had to do with how Go's type
inference made it hard for him to know the type of a variable.
Sure, an IDE or other tool could help, but Welsh says:

<BLOCKQUOTE><EM>
I staunchly refuse to edit code with any tool that requires
using a mouse.
</EM></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's mostly how I feel, too, though I'm more an emacs man.
I use IDEs and appreciate what they can give.  I used Eclipse
a fair amount back when it was young, but it's gotten so big
and complex these days that I shudder at the thought of
starting it up.  RubyMine gave me many pleasant moments when
I used it for a while a couple of years ago.

When I use IDEs, I prefer simpler IDEs, such as Dr. Racket or
even Dr. Java, to complex ones anyway.  They don't generally
provide as much support, but they do help.  When not helping,
they mostly staying out of the way while I am writing code.

For me, the key word in Welsh's refusal is <EM>require'</EM>.
If I *need* a mouse or a lot of IDE support just to use a
language, that's a sign that the code either isn't telling
me everything it should, or there's too much to think about.

Code should speak for itself, and it only say things that
the programmer needs to know.
-----