Code comprehension though is not always a objective term. Sometimes it heavily depends on a person's perception. Throughout my career I've seen different styles of coding and I tend to accept them.
In this case they felt that for is more readable so I let them change it (for me it's tom[a]to, tomat[o]). Now if they chose, to do it with recursion, again I wouldn't object to it.
Recursion is another fine example of a style. Some people love it, it make sense to them. Others are afraid of it.
once we had a guy that only wrote decrementing-for-loop...nowadays everyone hates his legacy code. But if you ask me...they get stuck at details and not the big picture, and the big picture is that he code was a freaking masterpiece. Sometimes hard to read, but he wrote the most resilient consumer services I've ever seen.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Code comprehension though is not always a objective term. Sometimes it heavily depends on a person's perception. Throughout my career I've seen different styles of coding and I tend to accept them.
In this case they felt that
foris more readable so I let them change it (for me it's tom[a]to, tomat[o]). Now if they chose, to do it with recursion, again I wouldn't object to it.Recursion is another fine example of a style. Some people love it, it make sense to them. Others are afraid of it.
once we had a guy that only wrote decrementing-for-loop...nowadays everyone hates his
legacycode. But if you ask me...they get stuck at details and not the big picture, and the big picture is that he code was a freaking masterpiece. Sometimes hard to read, but he wrote the most resilient consumer services I've ever seen.