> consistency is good in and of itself It can't be, because consistency is only a concept with no intrinsic value. The value is based on the relationship betwe

> consistency is good in and of itself It can't be, because consistency is only a concept with no intrinsic value. The value is based on the relationship between the concept and the application. You can say "consistency in code is good" or "consistency in code is bad", but then you've made an argument and you need back that up with reason. > id prefer someone/something that is consistently wrong to someone/something that is more often right, but randomly wrong. Just to be clear, we're not talking about bugs here, we're talking about style where there's, sometimes subjectively, "better" or "worse" more often than "right" or "wrong". > consistency implies methodology that can be changed and adapted, as opposes to simple mistakes that have to be assiduously monitored for. Consistency doesn't imply anything of the sort, but if you want to apply consistency to a problem with the goal of being able to change every instance of something you're not really solving a problem, unless your actual goal is consistency, which I argue isn't actually a goal at all.