How should it be done?

[Inator]

Some programmers say that what's best is to always keep the code arranged and readable by anyone, no matter if the final result take too much resource from the system, but the idea is to keep it more stable and maintainable.

Others say that what's best is to always keep it the most efficient as possible, taking the least possible system's resource, sometimes resorting to "microcode", hacks or some specific tricks/paradigms, no matter if the final code is readable by anyone.

So far, at University, they have taught us that the former is generally prefered for the commercial work. And this is what are we trained for, in there.

Now, PERSONALLY, I prefer the latter scheme.
What do you think about?

 

[Judge]

I can't speak for compiled code...but with scripting and markup languages I'm inclined to ask why you can't have both?

I always wrote code very neatly arranged, although I detested nesting and indenting. Yet I also made sure not to create unnecessary gaps and spaces...creating bloating code. Efficiency matters, even when everyone has much greater bandwidth than in the past.

 

[zurb]

If you work for an employer do it their way - which will generally be make it human readable.
You might not be on a project forever. Something might happen to you, you might be promoted, moved on to a new project. And someone else will have to maintain your code. (Even if you maintain your own code, can you remember what/how/why you did everything last month?) The more human readable, or comments you add, the quicker someone will be able to understand what you did, and complete the bug fix or feature update. Time spent mucking around trying to understand the code costs the employer/client. Might be quicker in the short term to not add comments, but it pays off in the long term.
Can you explain why it would take more system resource?

 

[Inator]

Interesting!

Hmm.. mine is quite different too . It could be myself, but to me, the maximum efficiency always means "the least time and space every little part of process need to get to the result", therefore I am more inclined to compiled or even assembled code. This is why I have a bad time standing laggy monster games like Minecraft

The thing is, that the system's design nowadays goes in so many packed code inside packed code inside packed code inside packed code, that I find a bit shocking how much speed could be lost, not the mention the possibility of speed improvements could be made to closed-source libraries, some parts of Windows may be sloppy...

Btw, I agree if commenting out almost every line is necessary :X

 

[Judge]

If you work for an employer do it their way - which will generally be make it human readable.

True dat! Some employers can be very strict- even anal about such practices....others may not care. The corporate entity I once worked for had no such policies. They only demanded that my code properly rendered in the most commonly used browsers at the time.

 

[Inator]

If you work for an employer do it their way - which will generally be make it human readable.
----
The more human readable, or comments you add, the quicker someone will be able to understand what you did, and complete the bug fix or feature update. Time spent mucking around trying to understand the code costs the employer/client. Might be quicker in the short term to not add comments, but it pays off in the long term.

Ouch. You killed me with this . Did not think on this point of view . Yet is very commercial-minded X_X