Why are direct proofs often considered better than indirect proofs? As the title indicates, I'm curious why direct proofs are often more preferable than indirect proofs. 
I can see the appeal of a direct proof, for it often provides more insight into why and how the relationship between the premises and conclusions works, but I would like to know what your thoughts are concerning this.
Thanks!
Edit: I understand that this question is quite subjective, but that is my intention. There are people who prefer direct proofs more than proof by contradiction, for example. My curiosity is concerning what makes a direct proof preferable to such individuals. In the past, I've had professors grimace whenever I did an indirect proof and showed me that a direct proof was possible, but I never thought to ask them why a direct proof should be done instead. What's the point? 

Direct proof is kind of proof which don't depend on number of values your logic can take - in 2-value logic contradiction is just shortcut to take all the option at once. 
 Such proof will need certain modifications before using it to 2< value logic which means you need new proof for new environment.
