Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 15th Feb 2013 10:40 UTC
General Development "Since I left my job at Amazon I have spent a lot of time reading great source code. Having exhausted the insanely good idSoftware pool, the next thing to read was one of the greatest game of all time: Duke Nukem 3D and the engine powering it named 'Build'. It turned out to be a difficult experience: The engine delivered great value and ranked high in terms of speed, stability and memory consumption but my enthousiasm met a source code controversial in terms of organization, best practices and comments/documentation. This reading session taught me a lot about code legacy and what helps a software live long." Hail to the king, baby.
Permalink for comment 552768
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Soulbender on Sun 17th Feb 2013 02:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

You can't get around the fact that if the software works it has been engineered correctly because it's doing what it was designed to do.


Uh no. That's like saying Trabant was a good car because it worked. Working is not a measurement of good engineering, for numerous reasons. For one, badly written code is hard to verify by both manual or automatic means so it's hard to know if it actually works and under what circumstances it will work or fail. Secondly, what works right now might not work tomorrow or next week. We don't live in a static world and it's a lot easier to adapt well-written and structured code to changing requirements.

In my experience, most people who argue that the end, "working" programs, justifies the means are those who write terrible and fragile code.

One of the worst things people do is try to fix things that aren't broken. Unless there's an actual need to rewrite something, it's a complete waste to do so.


Sure but it's a completely different thing and we're not talking about rewriting code. We're talking about doing it right in the first place.

Reply Parent Score: 3