Two Pieces of Code, Same Answer — Which One Should You Write?

This article explores the debate between writing short, simplified code versus longer, more detailed code. The author presents a matchstick square problem to illustrate the two approaches. They write a longer function to calculate the number of matchsticks needed for n squares, breaking down the process into clear steps. After showing a shorter, more concise version of the function, the author compares the two.

The author reveals their personal thought process when reading both codes. With the longer version, they could visualize the matchsticks and understand the code intuitively. The shorter version, however, required verification by plugging in numbers. The author notes that the second piece of code outsources the verification task to the reader.

The author then discusses variable naming and how meaningful names can clarify the intention behind the code. They point out that the shorter code lacks descriptive variable names, making its purpose less apparent. The longer code, on the other hand, uses descriptive names like FIRST_SQUARE and STICKS_TO_ADD, which reinforce the matchstick problem's core concepts.

The article concludes by highlighting a fundamental difference between mathematics and programming. In mathematics, a simple formula like 3n + 1 can convey the entire solution, as the logic and reasoning are external to the formula. However, in programming, the code itself must carry the story and intent, as there is no external proof or documentation.

The author concludes that there is no one-size-fits-all answer to the "shorter is better" question. Instead, programmers should consider what they want to convey to future readers of their code. They advise new programmers not to be ashamed of writing longer, more motion-visible code, as the longer code still serves its purpose as a clear illustration of the problem-solving process.