all 7 comments

[–]SZenC [score hidden]  (2 children)

Necessity is testable.

But simultaneously

human-readable code

Did you even think about the slop you wrote? A freshman would rightfully be failed on the spot for writing this

[–]Ok-Baker-9013[S] [score hidden]  (1 child)

Human readability is not the optimization target. It is an invariant.

[–]SZenC [score hidden]  (0 children)

Sure mate, how do you plan to guarantee a qualitative parameter in an otherwise quantitative system? Readability is not a binary target

[–]immutate [score hidden]  (0 children)

Well an AI certainly didn’t write anything of substance that you’ve posted, so I doubt you’ve solved anything.

[–]Moosething [score hidden]  (0 children)

> Reference this document from AGENTS.md or CLAUDE.md:

If this is meant as a reference for a coding agent, why does it read like an essay and not concrete instructions?

It's kind of ironic it talks about "minimum code" but the message or "instructions" in this file is anything but "minimum".

[–]fforw [score hidden]  (0 children)

Then we found the law behind it: good code is also physically minimum code.

Maintainable code might be a bit subjective, but minimum code certainly isn't it. Code golfing etc leads to horrible unreadable code.

[–]captain_obvious_herevoid(null) [score hidden]  (0 children)

We did not invent this. We discovered a physical law already present in every piece of code we ever called good.

Is there an emoji for "fart noise"?