Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks DiBona
"be consistent"
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: Commonly accepted style guide?

by dragonchild (Archbishop)
on Sep 29, 2005 at 16:54 UTC ( #496169=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Commonly accepted style guide?
in thread Commonly accepted style guide?

One guy I know does the work of several programmers, with few bugs in his code, but he writes very "old school" C that would make most people cringe.

So, this guy's code would pass criterion #1, but not criterion #2? To me, well-written code passes both criteria, and (imho) style is an important part of that.


My criteria for good software:
  1. Does it work?
  2. Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?


Comment on Re^2: Commonly accepted style guide?
Re^3: Commonly accepted style guide?
by Anonymous Monk on Sep 29, 2005 at 17:37 UTC
    Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?
    Don't you also need to qualify the experience level of "someone else". Some people are baffled by high minded notions like recursion and others can crank out a lisp compiler on a lunch break. Maybe a disclaimer?
    Can a professional of average compentence come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?
      Don't you also need to qualify the experience level of "someone else". ... Can a professional of average compentence ...

      A professional is a professional. A thousand years ago, under the guild system, if someone claimed to be of a specific rank in a guild, you could be reasonably certain that this person could do X, Y, and Z. You (usually) didn't get awarded a given rank without having performed a certain amount of work to demonstrate your skill.

      I'm not advocating that Perl go the route of certifications or other such items. But, when I write code to be maintained by other Perl professionals, I expect a strong understanding of certain concepts. Things like recursion, references, safe I/O interaction, and the like. I expect a passing familiarity with others, such as the symbol table.

      No, I don't expect that only wizards will maintain my code, but I also don't expect that monkeys will, either. Now, if my employer chooses to employ a monkey to maintain my code after asking me to write Hal (of "I can't let you do that, Dave" fame), that's my employer's problem, not mine.


      My criteria for good software:
      1. Does it work?
      2. Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?
Re^3: Commonly accepted style guide?
by bluto (Curate) on Sep 29, 2005 at 17:49 UTC
    I agree with you. I'm not saying this guy is doing anyone any favors by being extra "productive". I'm just addressing a single point that seems to keep comming up. I'm only saying that you can't determine experience by just taking a quick look at the code.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://496169]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others making s'mores by the fire in the courtyard of the Monastery: (5)
As of 2014-04-20 04:08 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    April first is:







    Results (485 votes), past polls