> Best guess is that your analysis is missing some detail.

What do you base that guess on?

I'm not saying it couldn't be done, I'm just saying that it sometimes just isn't worth it.

> People not tools write programs.

Yes. And just like people sometimes write crazy manifestos there isn't much point in fixing them, the purpose that they might have served is most likely better addressed by replacing them entirely.

> Also any serious discussion here ends up in politics.

Everybody knows HN doesn't do politics ;)

> If you design your software so that the programmers are fungible then the software suffers regardless of your choices.

Programmers are fungible not because they are cast from the same mold, but because - assuming they are responsible people - they can look past their present day horizon to the future, where after a lot of context switching they have to revisit that which they have made before, or, where they have to take over someone else's project, either because that person moved to a different role or because they've moved on entirely.

It is with such a future in mind that you can, if you want, make the life of that person a little bit easier by focusing on clarity of thought rather than terseness in expression. Nobody ever died for want of a few keystrokes more, but I'd have been a lot happier if some people made a habit of writing down first what the pile of executable spaghetti they wrought was supposed to be doing in the first place.

If you have not seen how bad it can get then more power to you.

Just one anecdote, which I may have posted on HN before, but a long time ago I worked for a game studio where there was a programmer who got into a fight with management. He left and I had to take over his project. All of the variable names were fruits and all of the functions were vegetables (or the reverse, as I said, it is long ago). There were no comments. But there were some bugs that needed fixing.

Clearly in his mind programmers were not fungible, and in my view the software suffered from his choices. So the one isn't necessarily a guarantee of the other (ok, n=1), though you might find them together every now and then.

I've seen some absolutely brilliant code that was clever and clear. That's the kind of thing that I aspire to, not to see how far I can push the CPP to do stuff it was never intended to do in the first place. We have contests for that sort of thing but it isn't the kind of construct that you should foist off on others in your line of work. Not if we're ever going to get serious about that engineering thing.

Recreational programming, that's a different story. Go wild, and I really hope you enjoy it. But if you submit your preprocessor based magical DSL as a pull request I'll nix it.

All good decisions are a product of the particular circumstances in which they arise. This post seemed to be about generalizing that process which I would guess comes out of a supposition of fungiblity.

As much as one can use a given style for a personal project so can one for a professional one so long as it fills the given need. Too often (in my view) fungibility is seen as a preeminent requirement and layers and layers of self justifying processes are built on top of that. I’m only saying that’s a choice and the costs and benefits are not as obvious as most suppose.

Also you can minimize risks with redundancy but most presume those costs to be too high. But again this quickly becomes about politics.