On Aug 25, 1:44 pm, John Passaniti <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 24, 9:05 pm, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > What about using what I learned to write programs that work? > > Does that count for anything? > > It obviously counts, but it's not the only thing that matters. Where > I'm employed, I am currently managing a set of code that "works" but > the quality of that code is poor. The previous programmer suffered > from a bad case of cut-and-paste programming mixed with a > unsophisticated use of the language. The result is that this code > that "works" is a maintenance nightmare, has poor performance, wastes > memory, and is very brittle. The high level of coupling between code > means that when you change virtually anything, it invariably breaks > something else. > > And then you have the issue of the programmer thinking the code > "works" but it doesn't actually meet the needs of the customer. The > same code I'm talking about has a feature where you can pass message > over the network and have the value you pass configure a parameter. > It "works" fine, but it's not what the customer wants. The customer > wants to be able to bump the value up and down, not set it to an > absolute value. So does the code "work"? Depends on the definition > of "work." > > In my experience, there are a class of software developers who care > only that their code "works" (or more likely, *appears* to work) and > think that is the gold standard. It's an attitude that easy for > hobbyists to take, but not one that serious professionals can afford > to have. A hobbyist can freely spend hours hacking away and having a > grand time writing code. Professionals are paid for their efforts, > and that means that *someone* is spending both time and money on the > effort. A professional who cares only about slamming out code that > "works" is invariably merely moving the cost of maintaining and > extending the code to someone else. It becomes a hidden cost, but why > do they care... it isn't here and now, and probably won't be their > problem.
I agree. Sadly, with managers, especially non-technical managers, it's hard to make this case when the weasel guy says "See! It's working.". -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
