@@ -21,7 +21,6 @@ We have an almost pathological focus on minimalism. We want the functionality o
1. Never compromise the present for backwards compatibility. Fix mistakes as soon as they are identified regardless of how it affects existing dependers. An antiquated depender can either keep up or become an artifact.
1. No sacred cows. If something can be substantially improved, do it.
1.[Dynamic analysis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_program_analysis) with 100% [code coverage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_coverage) is far more effective at catching programmer mistakes than static analysis will ever be. Programming tools can make such testing much less cumbersome.
1. The programming tools must make it easy for the programmer to understand and control what the computer is doing at the lowest level. High level abstractions should never lessen this understanding.
1. Use concrete [AST](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_syntax_tree) metrics to measure some aspects of code quality.
1. Fewer nodes for the same program with similar execution time and space is almost always better.
1. If node A refers to node B, a shorter path from A to B through the AST is almost always better.
