You seem to be willfully abusing the relationship between literature and literate programming. Knuth was being provocative in his paper in linking them, but these are very clearly not the notions Knuth has in mind.
His purpose is altogether simpler. From his paper, the literate programmer focuses on "exposition". He or she "chooses the names of variables carefully and explains what each means", and "strives for a program that is comprehensible... using a mixture of formal and informal methods that reinforce each other."
Literate programming is not there to entertain you. It's there to be understood. Beware the programmer who disdains comprehension of their programs.
No, I am not willfully abusing but thank you anyways.
Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.
Literate programming is not there to entertain you. It's there to be understood. Beware the programmer who disdains comprehension of their programs.
Programs are pieces of engineering. As such they are meant to be used. Beware the programmer who admires their programming too much. If they have elegantly solved a problem that will come out in their solution's use and not in its literate form.
Yes, programs are there to be used. Literate programming as a technique, however, is designed to facilitate those programs being understood. I'm not sure how you conclude that this has anything to do with programmers "admiring their programming."
His purpose is altogether simpler. From his paper, the literate programmer focuses on "exposition". He or she "chooses the names of variables carefully and explains what each means", and "strives for a program that is comprehensible... using a mixture of formal and informal methods that reinforce each other."
Literate programming is not there to entertain you. It's there to be understood. Beware the programmer who disdains comprehension of their programs.