5 ms·
> I haven't read the book and dunno about PG's definition of spaghetti code, but "we can make all these types of modifications without even looking at the rest
by laureny 14y ago
> I haven't read the book and dunno about PG's definition of spaghetti code, but "we can make all these types of modifications without even looking at the rest of the code" sounds like the opposite of what all people I know call sc.
That was exactly my thought as well, I had to reread the part twice to make sure. This is the definition of maintainable (or maybe even well-designed) code when all its parts are carefully isolated.
- hmbg 14y agoI think the point is that writing code on isolated parts without thinking about the overall purpose and architecture of the program leads to bloat, repeated functionality and diverging paradigms/conventions in the same codebase. I agree that's not the traditional definition of spaghetti code, but it's a problem in many large software projects. Adding that together, well designed code is the foundation of really bad code. That could explain a lot.