Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Dec 2009 23:52 UTC
Permalink for comment 399714
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-02-06
Well, I understand what you're saying, and perhaps you're right, but I take issue with it being called a back-handed compliment. I really was being sincere: I do think the alternatives are marginally better -- or at least, I've found them to be so for my daily work. I left Windows because I was sick of it, and the alternatives just worked better. I was making a value judgment, but it was based on pragmatic considerations.
I regretted the 'intentionally write bad code' bit -- that's not what I meant to say. I think the Windows developers write a huge pile of good code, and their backwards-compatibility efforts are especially noble and sacrificial. But someone, somewhere, either was sloppy or was forced to write bad code (for whatever reason, bureaucratic, architecture, or otherwise). Otherwise, their engineers wouldn't be attempting to fix it.
We all write bad code -- I've written a pile of it. As developers, true honesty recognises that we're all in a state of learning, and we'll never reach some sort of absolute pinnacle. This is all I was saying -- that it's easy to think we're perfect and they just don't give a damn, and I found it refreshing to be reminded that this just isn't the case.