I like to focus on writing code that’s done, done. The trouble is it takes a while to work out what it should do and even then involves continuous refactoring as my understanding of the problem changes. But the important point is that in the end I wrote some code that’s finished, for good. 🙄

A double-decker is brown chocolate, if it’s now white chocolate it’s probably been in your coat pocket too long :o).

It’s something to aspire to…

:P

I was wondering if there is a way to take your example slightly further by creating some names which are slightly longer but we pick bad abbreviations and make the code appear to do something else instead. Being misleading feels worse than being terse.

(Yes, I read it too, so there 🙂.)

I’d start carbo loading now… 😁

I’ve always said that I still think in terms of assembly language. I know modern CPUs are a whole different beast but the fundamental concepts still apply. The way Knuth used his Mix language in The Art of Computer Programming probably also drives the way I think.