<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Evaluating Code Readability and Legibility: An Examination of Human-centric Studies · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2110.00785/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2110.00785/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Evaluating Code Readability and Legibility: An Examination of Human-centric Studies — mentioned by zer00eyz</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47556238</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2110.00785:47556238</guid><pubDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2026 16:47:01 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; I think this may be related to how people read code. You have people who scan shapes, and then you have people who read code almost like prose. I think this is an astute observation. I think there is another category of &amp;quot;reading&amp;quot; that happens, is what you&amp;#x27;re reading for &amp;quot;interaction&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;isolation&amp;quot;. Sure c.method is a scalable shape but if your system deals with Cats, Camels, Cars, and Crabs that same c.method when dealing with an abstract api call divorced from the underlying representation might not be as helpful. I would think that we would have more and better research on this, but the…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2110.00785/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.SE</category></item></channel></rss>
