Gail Shaw wrote:

> "Works" Definition: Does (mostly) what the users expect. Doesn't contain
> (too many) bugs. Doesn't (often) crash.
> 
> Way too common an attitude. In commercial programming, any time not spent
> working toward the next version/next application/next feature is time
> wasted, as customers don't pay for pretty code. They pay for features (often
> features that they'll never use, but take comfort in having)

...and *this* is why Micro$oft is allowed to exist. >_<

> I'm still fighting for a redesign and rewrite of the ball of garbage that
> went into my system last year.

Oh dear God!

> The only time fixes are prioritised is when a large number of users are
> complaining very loudly.

How pathetic. It's like short-sightedness is taught in schools or 
something. Sure, users don't care about pretty code. I'm sure if you 
asked them though, they care rather a lot about *reliable* code...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message