chromatic wrote:
On Monday 27 October 2008 05:40:03 Salve J Nilsen wrote:
I think _some_ kind of shaming should be allowed. Carrots are good, but
sticks work too when applied in a respectable fashion.
But taking down the hall of shame smells awefully like the chinese press
rules ("We are only allowed to publish _good_ news about ourselves!")
Did you know the Hall of Shame was there? Several of the people who responded
to my post didn't know it was there.
Yes, I knew about it, although it could have been made more visible. Let's not
fix a visibility/marketing bug by removing the list, but instead fix the core
issue - the lack of visibility.
How would you feel if some of your work were on the list, had been on the list
for quite some time, and no one ever told you?
I would certainly not blame anyone else than myself, but that's me (I'm also a
bad example since I'm aware of the list and would at least put a little effort
in getting further up on the scale.)
Remember, this is not a project designed only to say "This code sucks." Its
intent is to encourage people to improve their code. My code doesn't
magically get better when someone finds a bug. It magically gets better when
someone *fixes* a bug.
One is a prerequisite of the other. You have to have some indication that a bug
exists before you can fix it (let's ignore "accidental bugfixes" for now.) So
unless you live in a bubble all by yourself, this list will at the very least
increase the likelyhood of you learning about (in this case Kwalitee) bugs.
This is a good thing. Especially if the scale we're measuring the code is
sensible, well thought out and relevant. If your ego gets a bruising, too bad.
The code Kwalitee is more important.
- Salve
--
#!/usr/bin/perl
sub AUTOLOAD{$AUTOLOAD=~/.*::(\d+)/;seek(DATA,$1,0);print# Salve Joshua Nilsen
getc DATA}$"="'};&{'";@_=unpack("C*",unpack("u*",':4@,$'.# <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
'2!--"5-(50P%$PL,!0X354UC-PP%/0\`'."\n"));eval "&{'@_'}"; __END__ is near! :)
