3 ms·

> I challenge you to define this term in a way that is clear and objective. Thanks, but no thanks. It's highly context dependent. Performance can be a goal.

by klyrs 4y ago

> I challenge you to define this term in a way that is clear and objective. Thanks, but no thanks. It's highly context dependent. Performance can be a goal. Simplicity (rather, lack of useless complexity) can be a goal. Maintainability can be a goal. Generality can be a goal. Understandability can be a goal. There's a sweet spot where brevity can be a benefit to those goals, beyond which it turns to tortuous code-golf. Taken to an extreme, any of the goals above can become pathological. With experience, you should know the difference between shoddy, slapdash or tortuous code and well-written code.

billllll 4y ago
> Thanks, but no thanks > With experience, you should know the difference between shoddy, slapdash or tortuous code and well-written code You've just successfully proven my point. By refusing to clearly define what "quality" means, you can now arbitrarily draw the line for quality anywhere you want any time you want. Any time you feel like you're not feeling important enough, you can throw a wrench into the process, yell about "quality," then complain on your blog when your manager/higher-up inevitably overrides you. If you ultimately want to provide value with your work, this isn't how you do it.
- klyrs 4y ago
  If I were speaking of a specific codebase, it would have a specific purpose, for which I could prioritize the many aspects of "quality." But I'm speaking in generality, and I do not believe in a one-size-fits-all approach to pretty much anything in life. > Any time you feel like you're not feeling important enough, you can throw a wrench into the process, yell about "quality," then complain on your blog when your manager/higher-up inevitably overrides you. You don't know me, then. It sounds like you work with petty-minded hobgoblins. I apologize for their existence. And for the record, I don't feel important and I generally distrust people who strive to. > If you ultimately want to provide value with your work, this isn't how you do it. I agree, posting to HN is strictly value-negative.

by klyrs 4y ago

billllll 4y ago

> Thanks, but no thanks > With experience, you should know the difference between shoddy, slapdash or tortuous code and well-written code You've just successfully proven my point. By refusing to clearly define what "quality" means, you can now arbitrarily draw the line for quality anywhere you want any time you want. Any time you feel like you're not feeling important enough, you can throw a wrench into the process, yell about "quality," then complain on your blog when your manager/higher-up inevitably overrides you. If you ultimately want to provide value with your work, this isn't how you do it.

klyrs 4y ago
If I were speaking of a specific codebase, it would have a specific purpose, for which I could prioritize the many aspects of "quality." But I'm speaking in generality, and I do not believe in a one-size-fits-all approach to pretty much anything in life. > Any time you feel like you're not feeling important enough, you can throw a wrench into the process, yell about "quality," then complain on your blog when your manager/higher-up inevitably overrides you. You don't know me, then. It sounds like you work with petty-minded hobgoblins. I apologize for their existence. And for the record, I don't feel important and I generally distrust people who strive to. > If you ultimately want to provide value with your work, this isn't how you do it. I agree, posting to HN is strictly value-negative.