I sympathize with that approach for sure, but I see it as similar to writing prose, which is certainly a creative endeavor. Sure, you could write an essay caPitALiZIng RAndOM leTtErs or spelıng uerds uıth ior oun ınventıd orthogr'fy, but who would want to read it, much less be your co-writer on it? There are conventions for a reason, and you should have an even better reason if you want to break them. That doesn't mean for a second that you can never break them — it just means that, for example, you should typically avoid adding complexity where you don't gain something (performance, flexibility, etc) of at least equal value in return.
Have you read Cormac McCarthy's "The Road"? That won a Pullitzer prize, and would probably get you a fail from most school English teachers if you were to submit it, or something similar for a writing assignment.
Most of the best art is made by breaking or testing the rules to their limits. I much prefer to read code that is 'hard to reason about' than code that reads like a class reader for five year olds - it gives me pause to think and exercise my brain, and maybe lend new perspectives on ways to use code.
Much appreciation to you both for the exchange of thoughts. I think playing around with the code and conventions is as important as keeping a shared repository clean and conventional. I like how Jon added his perspective to the post and I also agree with Lionel about readability when it comes to code in production. Cheers 🥂
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.
I sympathize with that approach for sure, but I see it as similar to writing prose, which is certainly a creative endeavor. Sure, you could write an essay caPitALiZIng RAndOM leTtErs or spelıng uerds uıth ior oun ınventıd orthogr'fy, but who would want to read it, much less be your co-writer on it? There are conventions for a reason, and you should have an even better reason if you want to break them. That doesn't mean for a second that you can never break them — it just means that, for example, you should typically avoid adding complexity where you don't gain something (performance, flexibility, etc) of at least equal value in return.
Have you read Cormac McCarthy's "The Road"? That won a Pullitzer prize, and would probably get you a fail from most school English teachers if you were to submit it, or something similar for a writing assignment.
Most of the best art is made by breaking or testing the rules to their limits. I much prefer to read code that is 'hard to reason about' than code that reads like a class reader for five year olds - it gives me pause to think and exercise my brain, and maybe lend new perspectives on ways to use code.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree
That's fair.
Much appreciation to you both for the exchange of thoughts. I think playing around with the code and conventions is as important as keeping a shared repository clean and conventional. I like how Jon added his perspective to the post and I also agree with Lionel about readability when it comes to code in production. Cheers 🥂