21–30 of 153 posts
> If a programmer can’t produce good code, they aren’t a good programmer. Who cares about good code ? good code doesn't mean anything, the only thing that is important is working code. If your program works but the code is not "good" people will still use it. A good programmer is someone who is able to write code that works
> If a programmer can’t produce good code, they aren’t a good programmer. Who cares about good code ? good code doesn't mean anything, the only thing that is important is working code. If your program works but the code is not "good" people will still use it. A good programmer is someone who is able to write code that works
in general you cannot even prove, whether a program does the right thing...
> If a programmer can’t produce good code, they aren’t a good programmer. Who cares about good code ? good code doesn't mean anything, the only thing that is important is working code. If your program works but the code is not "good" people will still use it. A good programmer is someone who is able to write code that works
Sure, come code you write once and never have to touch again. But that's usually the exception; popular programs always have more feature requests and bugs and have to keep up with the changing input/output environment. If it's bad code it will fall behind and be forgotten, because it's just too hard to maintain.
There are 2 types of “good” programmers, who both think the other type is useless. The first is the “rockstar” developer type who is great at prototyping, hitting deadlines no matter what and delivering functionality, albeit full of bugs. They will write 80% of the code and will drive the support team up the wall by breaking the build, causing customer issues in production, security holes and basically seriously degr…
There are 2 types of “good” programmers, who both think the other type is useless. The first is the “rockstar” developer type who is great at prototyping, hitting deadlines no matter what and delivering functionality, albeit full of bugs. They will write 80% of the code and will drive the support team up the wall by breaking the build, causing customer issues in production, security holes and basically seriously degr…
Looking through some repositories of programs I like, some of them were prototyped in very little time, but with a surprisingly excellent first revision.
I had the pleasure to work with Zed Shaw quite some time ago, and even though his code might not be perfect, he writes a lot better code than the vast majority, in a lot less time.
> If a programmer can’t produce good code, they aren’t a good programmer. Who cares about good code ? good code doesn't mean anything, the only thing that is important is working code. If your program works but the code is not "good" people will still use it. A good programmer is someone who is able to write code that works
You may have a piece of code that works now. But if it is rigid changing anything will be hell and require touching almost every part of the code. This of course will eat up time.
If it works but it is fragile, changing something in one place may break something else in very different place.
If your code works but is immobile, you will have to rewrite it if there is similar need in another system, but your code is not easy to reuse.
If your code works but has high viscosity future changes will be most likely done as the ugly hacks which won't help with any of the features listed above.
(I've omitted three more characteristics, because they are more of the result going overboard trying to avoid these four).
So to answer who cares about good code: anyone who will have to deal with it later.
> If a programmer can’t produce good code, they aren’t a good programmer. Who cares about good code ? good code doesn't mean anything, the only thing that is important is working code. If your program works but the code is not "good" people will still use it. A good programmer is someone who is able to write code that works
I care about good code. A caveat: I define good code as code I can come back to in a year and easily read and understand it. Sure, come code you write once and never have to touch again. But that's usually the exception; popular programs always have more feature requests and bugs and have to keep up with the changing input/output environment. If it's bad code it will fall behind and be forgotten, because it's just to…
> If a programmer can’t produce good code, they aren’t a good programmer. Who cares about good code ? good code doesn't mean anything, the only thing that is important is working code. If your program works but the code is not "good" people will still use it. A good programmer is someone who is able to write code that works
Have you heard about concept of code rigidity, fragility, immobility and viscosity? You may have a piece of code that works now . But if it is rigid changing anything will be hell and require touching almost every part of the code. This of course will eat up time. If it works but it is fragile, changing something in one place may break something else in very different place. If your code works but is immobile, you wi…
The programmers who don't respect these principles tend to not being able to produce a code that works, so I agree with you