1 Jan
2013
1 Jan
'13
11:32 a.m.
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 06:18:19PM -0800, steve wrote:
Engineers get paid by generating code that works
within the performance
capabilites of the system it's implemented on, not how it looks. Reuseable
code is about 3x the cost of a point design, your customer wants to pay for
that? No way. You want nice readable code, change the incentives.
If you write release-once-then-run-away code, this may hold true. But a lot
of code is written for systems that are maintained for more that one release.
Having throw-away code in such a system will increase the risk of errors
and the cost of maintenance quite a bit. Which is why people being serious
about code quality usually have code commits gated by code reviews.
Kind regards,
Alex.
--- On Wed, 12/26/12, Terry Stewart <terry at
webweavers.co.nz> wrote:
> From: Terry Stewart <terry at webweavers.co.nz>
> Subject: An interesting article on text-book vrs real-world programming
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at
classiccmp.org>
> Date: Wednesday, December 26, 2012, 11:30 AM
> Seen on one of my Google groups
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/21/financial_software_disasters/
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison