I don't agree. ‘Shame’ would require substandard work, indefensible decisions, incompetence — and I'm pretty sure none of my Commodore PET BASIC programs surviv

I don't agree. ‘Shame’ would require substandard work, indefensible decisions, incompetence — and I'm pretty sure none of my Commodore PET BASIC programs survive. Is there code I would write differently today? Certainly, plenty. That's nothing to be ashamed of. Time passes; tools change, environments change, requirements change, and available knowledge changes, including papers published by people who have explored relevant problems in different ways. Is there work I would have done differently if not for management constraints? A little, but that's not for me to be ashamed of. Is everything I've ever done the best possible under the circumstances? Undoubtedly not. Is that shameful? No, that's programming. By June 1949 people had begun to realize that it was not so easy to get a program right as had at one time appeared. I well remember when this realization first came on me with full force. The EDSAC was on the top floor of the building and the tape-punching and editing equipment one floor below on a gallery that ran round the room in which the differential analyser was installed. I was trying to get working my first non-trivial program, which was one for the numerical integration of Airy's differential equation. It was on one of my journeys between the EDSAC room and the punching equipment that “hesitating at the angles of stairs” the realization came over me with full force that a good part of the remainder of my life was going to be spent in finding errors in my own programs.     — Maurice Wilkes, Memoirs of a Computer Pioneer, MIT Press, 1985, p. 145