Progress is possible only if we train ourselves to think about programs without thinking of them as pieces of executable code.
Edsger DijkstraRead
How do we convince people that in programming simplicity and clarity - in short: what mathematicians call elegance - are not a dispensable luxury, but a crucial matter that decides between success and failure?
Interpretation
Simplicity and clarity in programming are essential for success, not just optional qualities.
In this quote, Edsger Dijkstra emphasizes the importance of elegance in programming. He argues that simplicity and clarity should not be viewed as luxuries but as necessities that significantly influence whether a programming endeavor will succeed or fail. The idea is that the way code is written can have a profound impact on the outcome of a project, making it crucial for programmers to focus on these qualities.
In practice
In a programming seminar discussing best practices, one might say this quote to emphasize the importance of writing clear and simple code.
Progress is possible only if we train ourselves to think about programs without thinking of them as pieces of executable code.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability.
The purpose of abstraction is not to be vague, but to create a new semantic level in which one can be absolutely precise.
We shall do a much better programming job, provided that we approach the task with a full appreciation of its tremendous difficulty, provided that we stick to modest and elegant programming languages, provided that we respect the intrinsic limitations of the human mind and approach the task as Very Humble Programmers.
The tools we use have a profound and devious influence on our thinking habits, and therefore on our thinking abilities.
LISP has jokingly been described as "the most intelligent way to misuse a computer." I think that description is a great compliment because it transmits the full flavour of liberation: it has assisted a number of our most gifted fellow humans in thinking previously impossible thoughts.
Innovation has nothing to do with how many R&D dollars you have. When Apple came up with the Mac, IBM was spending at least 100 times more on R&D. It's not about money. It's about the people you have, how you're led, and how much you get it.
We are losing our common vocabulary, built over thousands of years to help and delight and instruct us, for the sake of what we take to be the new technology's virtues.
Because primarily of the power of the Internet, people of modest means can band together and amass vast sums of money that can change the world for some public good if they all agree.
Our whole role in life is to give you something you didn't know you wanted. And then once you get it, you can't imagine your life without it. And you can count on Apple doing that.
Technique has taken over the whole of civilization. Death, procreation, birth all submit to technical efficiency and systemization.
We live in a technological universe in which we are always communicating. And yet we have sacrificed conversation for mere connection.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.