On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 10:09:29AM +1000, Scott Barnes wrote: > imho if you all get to a stage like that, and you have to write dirty > code... put that in the comments. > > "its not pretty, tight deadline and brainstrust needs output not a > case study...sorry to the person who must follow this code - SB Out.". > > That way when a co-developer picks it up they can go "uhuh...no probs, > i understand...*sigh* lets have a crack at it now".. > > otherwise they may go: > > "wtf!..wtf! serial list..tabl....wtf!....this guy/gals a freakin hack!".
My problems tend to come from picking up entire projects following this pattern. One file? "sigh, poor bugger, I know where he was coming from." One set of coherent modules? "hrm, bit of a rough job, bet the power bills were overdue that month." Not one project but a whole range of developments spanning 5 or more years? "wtf! wtf! I'm going to find where this **** lives and ram these rowspans down his[1] throat". Tom who doesn't like being on the "crunch" end of the process described below [1] The self-righteous anger is somehow more satisfying if I can give a definite gender to the declared victim. Even if it's wrong. = Quoted matter only below this point = > > On 5/14/05, Ayudh Nagara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ah... the Metaphysics of Quality... > > > > And what is good, Phaedrus, > > And what is not good, > > Need we ask anyone to tell us these things? > > > > - Robert M. Pirsig > > > > > > Chad Renando wrote: > > > When I worked in a Printed Circuit Board manufacturing company, the > > > Quality Manager and I had this discussion about the definition of > > > "quality". We could put in hundreds of thousands of dollars in > > > equipment and controls to ensure the circuit boards were within near > > > perfect tolerance. But the guy wanting a simple punch-and-crunch > > > circuit board could care less. > > > > > > Bottom line, the quality of your code depends on the application. > > > Your code is your calling card, be it for your personal resume or your > > > company's portfolio. If the employer you are after or the clients you > > > are targeting don't care, then punch-and-crunch code is just fine. > > > It's all about defining the Objectives and the Audience. > > > > > > For me, I am grateful for these discussions, as they help define this > > > moving standard of quality as it pertains to the at-times esoteric > > > term of "best practice". > > > > > > Chad > > > who finds his definition of "quality" depends on if he can be bothered > > > applying himself that day > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/14/05, Tom Kerr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 10:10:13AM +1000, Chad Renando wrote: > > >> > > >>>It does seem as though adherance to one line of thought or another > > >>>fits within religious ideals. Personally, I consider the adherance to > > >>>CSS to fall in the religions of: > > >>> > > >>>"Expansion of Seperation", > > >>>where after you seperate into MVC, you seperate your View into Style > > >>>and Content. > > >>> > > >>>and > > >>> > > >>>"Weight Reduction" > > >>>the zealous reduction of the amount of code required for a given > > >>>functionlaity > > >>> > > >>>At the moment, with regards to the faiths of "best practice", I am a > > >>>pagan like Sagan, ascribing to the religion of: > > >>> > > >>>"Get It Out" > > >>>where you pump out good functionality with crap code and pray daily > > >>>that you'll know what you were thinking when it comes time to rebuild > > >>> > > >>>Chad > > >> > > >>~snip~ > > >> > > >>This brings up an interesting (to me, anyway) question. I guess to my > > >>mind that the seperation is "what is correct" versus "what I know will > > >>work". With respect to the CSS-P/Tables question, it's no secret that > > >>your table-based design, so long as it works in only a couple of > > >>browsers will be viewable by >95% of the viewing public, complete with > > >>all of the nice graphical features that the author intended. > > >> > > >>Similarly, for the end user, the back-end code that you write is > > >>entirely unimportant so long as it, within reasonable time, spits out > > >>some display information (be it HTML/Flash/SVG/whatever) that lets them > > >>see what they want to see. > > >> > > >>Personally I cringe when the word from on high is that something needs > > >>to be finished yesterday, and the easiest way to make it work > > >>-right now- is to make a page rely on a user having javascript, or > > >>cookies. I cringe when I think of the poor maintainer who has to work > > >>out why on earth I stored a comma seperated list in a database table > > >>instead of splitting it into several fields allowing them to use SQL > > >>selection criteria in their search. Yet the > > >>client/non-technical boss/accounting department are chuffed when it > > >>'just works'. > > >> > > >>In my own way I'm a pagan of sorts, I do much of my home web browsing in > > >>a text-only browser, and I turn javascript off in my graphical browser > > >>unless I want it on for a particular reason. > > >> > > >>And now, the question: should my responsibility to my employer be to > > >>a) Get the thing out the door. Damned be your warm fuzzy feelings of > > >> doing something right when we just want to get the job finished and > > >> get paid for it. > > >> > > >>b) Do what I consider to be the best job I can, and try to explain to an > > >> employer who will never see the back-end code and never turn off > > >> cookies that while a majority are, not everyone is in the same > > >> situation as he is. > > >> > > >>What's the balance between moral imperatives and 'getting the job done'? > > >> > > >>-T ~sigsnip~ --- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/
