|P is for Practical|
Re^2: Two simple code style advice questionsby BrowserUk (Pope)
|on Jan 16, 2013 at 18:34 UTC||Need Help??|
At $work (where the word "ternary" provoked empty glares)
I cannot imagine any other profession where the experience practitioners would 'dumb down' their output to accommodate the inexperienced.
Can you imagine:
The short answer (I sorely hope), is a profound NO!.
So why do experienced programmers who do understand -- none of them ever admit to having problems understanding themselves -- these hardly difficult concepts and constructs, advocate 'dumbing them down' for the sake of those programmers who's education is formative?
And whatever justifiction you might offer in reply; STOP. And think. Because there is no logical justification.
If you dumb down, they will never learn, which is in nobody's interest.
If the first time they encounter a construct they do not understand, they do not ask for (or look up) clarification, then they deserve to be admonished strongly. If they do it a second time; they should seriously consider a different career. If their mistakes made as a result of their lack of understanding make it into production, their mentor deserves admonishment. Or the system that allows un-mentored code to get into production, needs urgent review.
Advocating the dumbing down of code, as a substitute for (requiring) proper education, is itself dumb.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.