Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 15th Feb 2013 10:40 UTC
"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.
Thread beginning with comment 552768
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sun 17th Feb 2013 03:48
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Member since:2011-08-08
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.
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.
You're assuming something other than using the software is required to know if it works. You're assuming the software working is conditional. You're playing "what if" by suggesting it may not work tomorrow. In _some cases_ you have a valid point. However, in other cases it simply doesn't apply or is untrue.
Also, your idea of what is "well-written and structured" can be and is very different from what other people deem as the same. One huge thing you seem to be missing is that personal opinion plays a large role in making judgments about someones code. I know several great coders who are often times in disagreement about code-related issues. To put it simply, coding is not black & white the way you think it is. It's not correct or incorrect. It's not right or wrong. There is a lot of grey area and more than one way to skin a cat.
In my experience, most people who argue that the end, "working" programs, justifies the means are those who write terrible and fragile code.
In many cases that may be true. In many cases it is not.
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.
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.
Again, what's "right" is often times a matter of opinion therefore there is no right or wrong -- only working and non-working.
Making assumptions about things that don't apply (when they don't apply) is pointless. Unnecessarily over-complicating things is pointless. "Fixing" something that isn't broken is pointless. Deeming software to be "wrong" because it doesn't follow your own coding philosophies is pointless.
Earlier you pointed that we don't live in a static world. In addition to that, coding `rightness` and `wrongness` isn't always static either.
RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Alfman on Mon 18th Feb 2013 16:05
in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Member since:2011-01-28
ilovebeer,
"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."
It works...until it doesn't.
As long as it's limited to personal code, and the original developer doesn't care about how it's engineered, then maybe it doesn't matter to him. But if he's working in a corporate setting, some other poor sole will inherit that code and he'll be none-to-pleased to learn that the earlier developer completely disregarded code quality in his work.
"Also, your idea of what is 'well-written and structured' can be and is very different from what other people deem as the same. One huge thing you seem to be missing is that personal opinion plays a large role in making judgments about someones code. I know several great coders who are often times in disagreement about code-related issues."
Of course there are different opinions, especially with details that come down to different tastes. But ask them if they think the engineering doesn't matter at all as long as the end product works. The good software engineers I know are proud of good engineering.
RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer
by lucas_maximus on Mon 18th Feb 2013 19:02
in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Member since:2009-08-18
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Why does Google get so much credit in the technology industry? Why, despite the company's many obvious failings, do many geeks and enthusiasts still hold a somewhat positive view on the all-knowing technology giant? A specific talk at Google I/O this week provides the answer.
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
OSNews is a sponsor of this year's O'Reilly OSCON in Portland, Oregon, USA. A lucky OSNews reader will win a free three-day pass, including two tutorials days. To win the pass, post a comment on this story saying something about Open Source Software or OSCON. We'll pick a winner at random next week. If you don't have an OSNews account, you may email us your entry. Part of the conference is the 9th annual Open Source Awards, and today the 16th is the deadline for nominations. If you'd like to nominate an outstanding open source contributor, do it here. Read on for more information about OSCON. Update: The 20% discount code for OSNews readers is "OSN."
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
"Windows is indeed slower than other operating systems in many scenarios, and the gap is worsening." That's one way to start an insider explanation of why Windows' performance isn't up to snuff. Written by someone who actually contributes code to the Windows NT kernel, the comment on Hacker News, later deleted but reposted with permission on Marc Bevand's blog, paints a very dreary picture of the state of Windows development. The root issue? Think of how Linux is developed, and you'll know the answer.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
This is one of those news items that's fun to write, fun to read, fun to comment on, and where no one will be able to say anything unkind. It's all just one big ball of awesome fluffiness. TuneTracker, the BeOS radio automation software, has just released something very special: TuneTracker System 5, the first version designed entirely and specifically for Haiku. In fact, it actually includes Haiku in the software package. Better yet, TuneTracker also unveiled several system-in-a-box products - which have Haiku and TuneTracker pre-installed.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Exactly twenty years ago, a document was published that played a huge role in establishing the web as we know it today. Twenty years later, and this simple and straightforward document is proof of an irrefutable fact: while closed technologies can change markets, open technologies can change the world.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Oh multitasking. That staple of computing that got thrown out the window with many modern smartphones. We got some rudimentary thing in its place - but even as multitasking on phone and tablets improves, its user-visible side remains cumbersome. Windows 8 has a neat implementation, and now it's time Android follows in it footsteps.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
They're here! Whether that excites you or not remains to be seen, but the Galaxy S4, which will most likely become the best selling Android smartphone of the year by a huge margin, has been reviewed by all the major sites, and there's lots of interesting conclusions in there - although I think most of you will get the gist.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Nokia has posted its quarterly results for the first quarter of 2013, and just like the quarters that came before, there's not a whole lot of good news in there. The rise in Lumia sales still can't even dream of making up for the sales drop in Symbian phones, and when broken down in versions, the sales figures for Windows Phone 8 Lumias in particular are very disappointing. In North America, Nokia is getting slaughtered.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
The day has finally come: Google has started shipping Google Glass to the lucky few early adopters. Now that it's shipping, Google has also unveiled a lot more about the API and the specifications of the device itself. While the company had already given out substantial details at earlier occasions, there are still a few surprises here.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
Almost exactly three years ago, I wrote about why OSNews was no longer OSNews: the alternative operating system scene had died, and OSNews, too, had to go with the times and move towards reporting on a new wave of operating systems - mobile, and all the repercussions that the explosion of smartphones and tablets have caused. Still, I was wondering something today: why aren't we seeing alternative operating systems on mobile?More Features »
Sponsored Links
Member since:
2005-08-18
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.
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.