Clay language

[Don]

bearophile wrote:
> Stanislav Blinov:
> 
>> ...which quickly expands to a lot of *long* import lines, with "don't 
>> forget to add another" constantly pushing the door-bell.
> 
> That's redundancy is "making your subsystems interfaces explicit". I see that you and other people here fail to understand this, or just value a bit of typing more than a tidy way of coding. To interested people I suggest to read papers about this part of the Ada design (and generally about module system design).
> 
> Bye,
> bearophile

Bearophile, you frequently talk about "a tidy way of coding" in 
arguments. As far as I can tell, it simply means "bearophile's way of 
coding", and it's always verbose, but the 'tidy' contains an implied 
value judgement that it is good.

Your use of 'tidy coding' doesn't distinguish between a coding style 
which catches bugs, versus a coding style which contains needless, 
redundant verbosity -- and that is inevitably what the discussion is 
about. I do not think it is ever valid to use that expression.

To me, that term is always a flag that a fallacy is coming.