The quoted line was from going back, editing, and even screwing that up. haha
I can see what you're saying. I still feel like intuitive code == simpler, but we'll have to agree to disagree.
This has made me more interested in diving in and learning some lower level stuff since you believe it is more simple. At the very least it'd be a great learning experience.
The problem with "intuitive code == simpler" is that it doesn't account for the scaffolding your intuitions are based upon. Like it or hate it, C is pretty straightforward in what it claims to do, and assembly moreso.
Remember that a machine is ultimately the world's stupidest idiot savant following your directions according to the rules of its hardware--any abstractions built atop it to make things "more intuitive" will only serve to shield you from the underlying simplicity of the system.
I'm not going to claim that high-level programming is anything other than a productivity boost, but I will state that for learning the system and writing system-friendly code you really need to be able to operate at a low level. Oftentimes, that low-level is very reasonable and as "intuitive" in its spartan domain as Ruby or something similar.
Unless you're the x86 isntruction set. Fuck that guy.
I can see what you're saying. I still feel like intuitive code == simpler, but we'll have to agree to disagree.
This has made me more interested in diving in and learning some lower level stuff since you believe it is more simple. At the very least it'd be a great learning experience.