Ah I see you're one of those who would enable `UserManager.DISALLOW_FUN`!

I personally quite enjoy a bit of whimsy in code. What we do (mostly) isn't that serious (modulo those, including me once upon a time, who work on literal life and death software)

Live a little. When you've passed away, was all the seriousness paid off?

That said, funny code should still work

I couldn’t agree more. I work in a codebase that has a handful of these “fun”-named functions/concepts and I hate it. It wasn’t funny the first time I came across it (just very confusing) and it’s not fun having to explain to new hires why a few things are named the way they are.

It needlessly complicates reading/following the code. Even if you explain the naming back at where you define the function/variable it add an extra click-through/hover to read that and an extra translation you have to do in your head when you read the “fun” variable name in the future.

One example is we have a flag called “dinnerbell”. What does that do? It tells the server receiving that flag to “come and get it”, “it” being the full data object instead of just getting a delta. It could have been called a whole slew of other things that would make more sense.

I am in this camp as well. Even worse are cute error messages.

If software actually worked, then I'd be fine with more whimsy. But it doesn't, so I'm not.

Me too. Professional code isn’t the right place to insert your personality or sense of humour.

It's even worse when you stumble upon a repo with already poor documentation, only to find it filled with silly jokes e.g. "You thought this would be easy, right? Well, that's what X thought too, but..." yeah, leave the storytelling aside please.