Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 15th Feb 2013 10:40 UTC
Permalink for comment 552930
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-08-08
Some of the worst, creakiest, ugliest legacy code you've had to maintain was written by people who think like me.. So, people who think there's a lot of grey area when it comes to what's good and what's bad code. And that often times a codes "goodness" or "badness" is simply subjective opinion. I hope you don't consider yourself a good coder if you disagree with what I just said.
"Good design" is too much a matter of opinion. Maybe you should choose different wording to better express your viewpoint. For example, providing specifics such as Alfman has.
You disliking how something was done doesn't automatically make it unreliable or hard to maintain. Unreliability is the result of bad programming. Code being difficult to maintain can be the result of a bad programmer doing the job, where the code itself isn't the actual problem but rather your lack of ability is.