I've had the displeasure of maintaining code written by duct tape programmers in the past. We called them combat programmers, and some of them worked at places

I've had the displeasure of maintaining code written by duct tape programmers in the past. We called them combat programmers, and some of them worked at places like Netscape with people like jwz (who was mentioned in this article). A thousand lines of un-commented Perl script (with few, scattered functions) that looks like it was written in cat(1), for example, is the kind of duct tape that fails quickly and makes life miserable for whomever ends up needing to fix a bug or introduce a new feature. In my experience, this is the sort of thing duct tape programming (almost always) produces, and I think it's worth at least a little bit of actual design and documentation time to create something far better and more maintainable.