1. 6
  1. 7

    Two critiques:

    1. The section “Cognitive Models of Program Comprehension” is taken-whole cloth from the cite, but doesn’t make that clear. Instead it looks like it’s just referencing it, as opposed to straight quoting it.
    2. There’s this style I’m noticing in a lot of places that I associate with “crank” writing. Pulling from a lot of disparate domains of knowledge (human vision, gestalt psychology, cognitive models) that are distant from the topic, using each very shallowly without a lot of investigation or work on synthesis. Then using that all on fairly simple examples (indentation, spacing) that don’t need or merit all that machinery, and then acting like this was a major accomplishment. It doesn’t mean the author is wrong, or even that they’re a crank, but it makes me immediately suspicious of all their claims.
    1. 2

      I’m not qualified to say whether the author is using all the research results appropriately or whether the research is as definitive as the article implies, and I think it probably needs some more complex, messier examples. However, once the article got past the background material and started digging into specifics of code formatting, I found myself nodding in agreement quite a lot, even – and this is the key, at least for me – in places where the article was telling me the styles I’ve been using for years aren’t the best choices.