Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well if we're singling out maintenance programmers, lets also talk about programmers who use "maintenance" as a dirty word. They tend to be the type to vomit out whatever immediately comes to their head and ship when it just barely works, with no thought or consideration for maintainability. Because, hey, they're going to move on to their next project anyway, and "getting things done" in the short term is far more im…
There is a middle area here, where one doesn't worry about perfect code, but still takes a moment to consider design. Who said otherwise? The person who kicked this off declared Notch a terrible programmer because he didn't build a runway in version 0.1 for people years in the future to do exactly what they wanted. Yet he did build a large product from nothing, that has provided millions of hours of enjoyment to user…
Apparently a lot of HN posters. Looking at the siblings, you see the exact circle-jerk I criticized: "Only launching matters. Builders are so much smarter and more talented than maintainers. Code quality is a secondary concern that can be addressed later." And lets be honest, your comment itself did not really hint at any sort of balance -- it was highly insulting to anyone not writing code from scratch. "... tosses to feel better about themselves as they try to feed the family with sloppy seconds." Really? REALLY? That's horribly dismissive to anyone who has to work in an existing code base. Its shamefully dismissive.
> The person who kicked this off declared Notch a terrible programmer because he didn't build a runway in version 0.1 for people years in the future to do exactly what they wanted.
Said poster did not make the claim solely on the lack of mod-ability, but also on things like poor use of OpenGL APIs and extreme duplication of code. Some point between version 0.1 and release, one should take a step back, refactor, and clean up with an eye for maintainability.
Also, the fact that something is version 0.1 is not really an excuse for things like writing code that duplicates functionality. Its entirely possible to write an initial version that has passable code quality -- I've done it many times (and had coworkers comment on how easy it was to maintain). You just have to keep in mind that if you're writing throwaway code, it must be thrown away, and if that's not acceptable that you need to spend a little extra time on a maintaining a minimum level of quality.
> And yes, there is a type of maintenance programmer that I will absolutely disparage. It is the perpetually over-their-heads developer who is always surrounded by purportedly terrible code because it doesn't have a "insert your specific need here" structure.
Said programmers are often interested in improving the quality of the code-base. Your disparagement is misplaced. They are the people that take an unmaintainable mess and mold it into a reliable system. But of course, since the work" is laid in stone in front of you, all of those unknown lands revealed and detours and dead-ends made evident" that's work that anybody can do. And that statement is not horribly dismissing and insulting at all. Right.
I've had more sleepless nights due to "special snowflake" developers than the maintenance programmers you disparage.