Difference between revisions of "Talk:2730: Code Lifespan"
(Rewriting with .sigs (or correctly positioned ones) and edit-friendlier indication of paragraph breaks for those who come after (the first-post could have been *two* posters, as I initially read it).) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--> | <!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--> | ||
I'm not sure if the thesis in this comic is accurate. But if it is, my explanation would be that a person with a more spontaneous live-in-the-moment attitude might program stuff that is more interesting, than the stuff made by the person who is (maybe neurotically) obsessed with making clean code. | I'm not sure if the thesis in this comic is accurate. But if it is, my explanation would be that a person with a more spontaneous live-in-the-moment attitude might program stuff that is more interesting, than the stuff made by the person who is (maybe neurotically) obsessed with making clean code. | ||
| + | <br />My own experience is that one loses the fun of programming something if the perfectionism plays to big of a role.{{unsigned ip|162.158.203.40|14:53, 27 January 2023}} | ||
| − | + | At least at a corporate level, I suspect this phenomenon has an extremely simple explanation. When your code is high-quality, people often won't even realize they are using and interacting with it, because it just does what it's supposed to. When your code is hackish, you and your coworkers will constantly find it breaking seemingly unrelated stuff, forcing them to go back to it over and over, trying to make it work, only to discover it breaks even more things when they try to fix it. | |
| − | + | <br />Your high-quality code is still interacting with those seemingly unrelated things, it's simply not breaking the unrelated things, so you don't notice it's interacting with the seemingly unrelated things.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.97|172.69.68.97]] 16:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC) | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | Your high-quality code is still interacting with those seemingly unrelated things, it's simply not breaking the unrelated things, so you don't notice it's interacting with the seemingly unrelated things. | ||
Revision as of 17:03, 27 January 2023
I'm not sure if the thesis in this comic is accurate. But if it is, my explanation would be that a person with a more spontaneous live-in-the-moment attitude might program stuff that is more interesting, than the stuff made by the person who is (maybe neurotically) obsessed with making clean code.
My own experience is that one loses the fun of programming something if the perfectionism plays to big of a role. 162.158.203.40 (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2023 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
At least at a corporate level, I suspect this phenomenon has an extremely simple explanation. When your code is high-quality, people often won't even realize they are using and interacting with it, because it just does what it's supposed to. When your code is hackish, you and your coworkers will constantly find it breaking seemingly unrelated stuff, forcing them to go back to it over and over, trying to make it work, only to discover it breaks even more things when they try to fix it.
Your high-quality code is still interacting with those seemingly unrelated things, it's simply not breaking the unrelated things, so you don't notice it's interacting with the seemingly unrelated things.172.69.68.97 16:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
