From: Pete Dashwood on
starwars wrote:
>> Base "good and bad" upon objectives and measurable criteria.
>> Otherwise you are talking religion.
> I gave you criteria and a lot of other useful information. I don't
> recall any thank yous but I do see a lot of arguments you're making
> for other people, I guess you see they can't defend themselves.

Given that you are afraid to post under a consistent identifier, and will
not use your name, and that your posts are unnecessarily hostile (nobody
here attacked or flamed you; people requested evidence and citation for some
of the assertions you made), how do you expect to be taken seriously?

Why would anyone need to defend themselvs when you haven't offered a serious

If you are not just some kid looking for an argument then make your case
according to the generally accepted rules of intellectual discussion:
premises backed by cites, a reasoned discourse to a valid conclusion. (With
courtesy and respect for the people you are addressing, and accepting that
if people disagree, that doesn't make them dopes, it just means they

In actual fact, most people here would have some sympathy for your views on
the importance of clean code; but we recognise there are other criteria as
well. Many people here are or were programmers and were involved in
programming at a time when optimised and clean code was not just important,
but essential. Some of us have programmed systems with 4.8K (minicomputers)
and 16K (IBM mainframe running TOS) and if code wasn't "clean" apps simply
couldn't be implemented.

If you ARE just some kid looking for an argument then perhaps your time here
is being wasted? Try Facebook or Twitter...

>> And the objectives shouldn't be based upon "clean code", but upon
>> "are the needs of the customer met".
> That's an interesting and short-sighted comment. If you say part of
> the customer's needs are software that's easily and promptly serviced
> then clean code does have a direct and measurable influence on
> whether those needs are met.

Of course it does, IF you are working with severely limited resources, OR
you have timing constraints (as in real time processes) where response time
is absolutely critical. For commercial applications, the difference between
100 milliseconds and 95 milliseconds is seldom critical.
> I see you guys are basically middle-of-the-road dopes who really
> don't care about quality or performance or understanding how anything
> really works as long as it eventually works (sort of).

Given that some of us have been posting to this forums for many years (how
long have you been doing so?) and the trail of posts would gainsay your
assertion, would it not be a simple matter to look at some of the history
before jumping to such a rash conclusion? Personally I don't care what you
think about me because you haven't established enough credibility for me to
be interested, but there may be more sensitive types here (I know Doc is
very easly wounded and so is Howard... :-) (yeah, right)). Apart from that,
it is simply bad manners and discourteous to insult people you don't even
know. And it is also very unlikely to win people to your point of view.

> Those are fine
> goals for applicance users (or car drivers, etc.) but for people who
> do this as a living which I thought we all were, those are some
> pretty sorry values.

You may be confusing "doing something for a living" with "being


"I used to write I can do anything."