agree, but as i said: "he was making a memorable and funny quote, with quite a bit of truth to it, not a precise scientific hypothesis"
never-the-less there is still a lot of truth to the saying, nobody said it was universally categorically true.
i've written clever code when it needs to be clever, for example performance. along the lines of the RCU code. when i do i plan for handling the complexity - static analysis or exhaustive testing if possible.
suddenly needing to advance your cleverness by 2x isn't impossible, but it's not fun if your butt is on the line.
Sure. I wasn’t advocating for making all your code clever. But clearly super clever code doesn’t make code magically not debuggable. It may not be fun to touch but usually you just make sure it’s well tested, documented, & then you try to never touch it again.
never-the-less there is still a lot of truth to the saying, nobody said it was universally categorically true.
i've written clever code when it needs to be clever, for example performance. along the lines of the RCU code. when i do i plan for handling the complexity - static analysis or exhaustive testing if possible.
suddenly needing to advance your cleverness by 2x isn't impossible, but it's not fun if your butt is on the line.