Bob Martin wrote: > in 117455 20090615 044816 Steven D'Aprano > <ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au> wrote: >> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:39:50 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> >>>> Shame on you for deliberately cutting out my more serious and nuanced >>>> answer while leaving a silly quip. >>> Can't have been very "serious and nuanced" if it could be summed up by >>> such a "silly quip" though, could it? >> But it can't be summed up by the silly quip, which is why I'm complaining >> that the silly quip on its own fails to include the more serious and >> nuanced elements of my post. > > Lots of references to "good programmer" but no attempt to define the term. > > Who is the better programmer - one who writes lousy code but produces good > programs > or one who obeys all the rules of coding but whose programs break all the > time? > (Yes, I know there are two other categories!) > In almost 50 years programming I have met all types but I tended to judge them > by the end results, not on their style.
A programmer that just follows the recipes for the so-called "rules of coding" is just, as Steven says, a bad programmers. Unless you write a program that works, you are not a programmer; once you've written one that works, we'll see whether you're a good or bad by your style. Points is taken when the so-called rules are followed mindlessly. Bonus Points if you can justify your breaking rules. No point for program that doesn't work. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
