Using callcc this feature got blazingly fast and very nicely readable.

Code that is needed to create the output and the output itself is hard to read because of all the workarounds we have to use, especially around shadowed variables and control flow

Note that every call of sample(1:6, 3, replace = T) gives a different outcome since we draw with replacement at random. To allow you to reproduce the results of computations that involve random numbers, we will used set.seed() to set R’s random number generator to a specific state. You should check

Jest provides useful matchers like toHaveLength or toBeUndefined to make your tests more readable and to produce more understandable error messages.

Those thoughts should beseparated from each other with blank lines.

I also added --return and used long options, to make this command a little less inscrutable:

“Who cares? Let’s just go with the style-guide” — to which my response is that caring about the details is in the heart of much of our doings. Yes, this is not a major issue; def self.method is not even a code smell. Actually, that whole debate is on the verge of being incidental. Yet the learning process and the gained knowledge involved in understanding each choice is alone worth the discussion. Furthermore, I believe that the class << self notation echoes a better, more stable understanding of Ruby and Object Orientation in Ruby. Lastly, remember that style-guides may change or be altered (carefully, though!).

It's a matter of readability I guess.

On the other hand, you state that a certain thing behaves_like a shared example group.

has better readability

The non-minified default bundle is no longer mangled, making it more readable and preserving inline comments.

The fact we’re using ActiveRecord (or something looking like it) doesn’t mean Trailblazer only works with Rails! Most people are familiar with its API, so we chose to use “ActiveRecord” in this tutorial.

You may use keyword arguments in your filters for type safety and better readable code.

One thing I really like about this style is the elegance and readability it provides to your codebase.

Slots can already be pretty confusing to comprehend, I think it is better to stick to what people (may) already know.

One last bonus: CSS variables can be written in a way that makes it easier for human programmers to understand. If you just see hex code #93e9be, you won’t know what color it produces, while --brand-green makes clear the purpose of the variable.

Similarly problematic is the “cancel culture,” where people attempt to expunge anyone with whom they do not perfectly agree, rather than remain focused on those who profit from discrimination and injustice.

I have a few colleagues that converted to hyperscript, and while they were adverse at first, they were satisfied with having switched once they had become comfortable with the way it looks/reads.

The only "issue" it has is that its unfamiliar. People have been working with HTML for years and are comfortable with it. That's basically the only reason that people find it more readable. If you make an effort to spend sometime with hyperscript, it becomes as familiar and readable as jsx.

code is read much more often than it is written.

I know that it is the matter of taste and a debatable thing, I find JSX and regular javascript flow operators a lot more readable than any sort of {#blocks} and directives.

Tables are not yet supported. If you love impossible to read regular expressions, submit a PR!

A reasonably clean alternative would be to map a function over the array and use destructuring in the each loop: {#each [1, 2, 3, 4].map(n => ({ n, sqr_n: n * n })) as { n, sqr_n }} {sqr_n} {sqr_n / 2}<br> {/each}

remaining: 0, callbacks: [] r: 0, // remaining outros c: [], // callbacks p: outros // parent group

Why the obfuscation of remaining to r and callbacks to c? This is fine for function-local variables but in this instance makes the code significantly harder to reason about? There is no notion of what c and r mean.

I'm certainly not claiming that we should use clever tricks to scrunch our code into the most compact form possible at the expense of readability. Nor am I claiming that reducing lines of code is necessarily a worthwhile goal, since it encourages turning readable code like this...

Personally for me, this is incredibly hard to read. Regex everywhere, nested objects with different rules and configurations that are very intuitive, multiple loaders that resolve backwards, built in loaders having obscure issues that require using third party loaders in between, separation of plugins and loaders, and so on.

and making the code more beautiful and compact and human readable

a technique that enable a test suite to perform as well as using fixtures (or better if you're running just a few tests from the suite) and read as good as you are used to when using factories

The lack of a dynamic scripting language is annoying, though Tsung XML scenarios (again, just like JMeter) can include things like loops and if-statements, so it is actually possible to write all sorts of complicated user scenario “code.” The functionality is there, but the usability is not: few developers like “programming” in XML.

Tired of using the JMeter GUI or looking at hairy XML files?

We believe load test scripts should be plain code to get all the benefits of version control, as opposed to say unreadable and tool generated XML.

An online tool for calculating readability Some word processing software has the Flesch-Kincaid formula built in. Or you can use this online tool to calculate the reading level of a particular passage:

The transformation of a page by Readability is pretty dramatic, and its use can lead to a focused conversation in the classroom about what has been removed, and why, and what has remained, and why. This forced awareness of the construction of a web page is valuable knowledge for young users of the web.

When you agree to the Terms of Use, you can continue with the registration process.