> so bizarre ... what the hell is that supposed to tell someone?!
I liked this bizarre comment. It was like seeing a physical geometry proof for trig. Or like thinking about primes while riding a bike for an hour.
In 10 - 15 seconds this comment offered a flash of appliable intuition into primes I'd not appreciated before.
Granted, the bulk of that was first gathering that the top 3 rows of digits were a series turned sideways (printing them rotated would have made that instant). Joys of plaintext.
But then the pattern popped, and the code, including the optimization, made sense, but now from the "grok", with MTOWTDI.
Neither their commentary nor their function names and comments, caused the grok. I could "accept" the assertions, but to me neither naming nor comments were intuitively self-evident the way the diagram was.
Both of them commented on having to dwell on what the code was doing to consider refactoring. Once this flash happens, one no longer needs reference code at all, it's just another property of primes.
I liked this bizarre comment. It was like seeing a physical geometry proof for trig. Or like thinking about primes while riding a bike for an hour.
In 10 - 15 seconds this comment offered a flash of appliable intuition into primes I'd not appreciated before.
Granted, the bulk of that was first gathering that the top 3 rows of digits were a series turned sideways (printing them rotated would have made that instant). Joys of plaintext.
But then the pattern popped, and the code, including the optimization, made sense, but now from the "grok", with MTOWTDI.
Neither their commentary nor their function names and comments, caused the grok. I could "accept" the assertions, but to me neither naming nor comments were intuitively self-evident the way the diagram was.
Both of them commented on having to dwell on what the code was doing to consider refactoring. Once this flash happens, one no longer needs reference code at all, it's just another property of primes.