"Programming on the other hand... code is either 0% correct or 100% correct. Anything less than 100% correct is broken." I don't think that's even remotely clo

"Programming on the other hand... code is either 0% correct or 100% correct. Anything less than 100% correct is broken." I don't think that's even remotely close to accurate. Spend a day looking at the Daily WTF, and consider that the Daily WTF is a LOT more representative of the IT world than HN is. There are raftloads of garbage code out there, and the people writing it can get away with it because it kind of works, even if most coders write 2000 lines to do what a competent coder would have done with 200. In visual effects, the viewer is far LESS forgiving. Why do computer-generated water effects, even with multi-million dollar budgets, still look CG? It's because we are so familiar with what water looks like that we subconsciously pick up on miniscule flaws that are exceedingly difficult to groom out, because the computer-generated water requires so much computational power. The IT industry as a whole is stark proof that code is far too forgiving. Look at the host of rants about corporate IT -- the vast majority of IT, and the reason that "enterprise" carries the connotations of certain 4-letter words. And look at films that are heavy with visual effects, and see how easily you can find flaws in them, and how much effort film makers put into creating those animations. The difference? You can put broken code into production, and get away with it easily. Outside of communities like this, let's be honest -- hardly anyone can tell that the code is utter garbage, proven by the fact that most of it IS utter garbage. Then look at how easily you can detect flaws in almost any visual art medium -- you might be surprised at how much effort goes into crafting a fine art photograph, given how easy it is to allow miniscule flaws to break the connection with the viewer.