| ??? 06/15/07 17:46 Read: times |
#140874 - Nature of commercial software Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Richard Erlacher said:
When I need a hotrod, I write in ASM and comment it liberally. Well, if you're sticking to my (perhaps poor) analogy, asm would be a jet plane, not a hot rod ;-) That's pretty much the definition of a good programmer, isn't it? And it applies no matter what language one uses. Then why do so many people think they can program without doing that? By definition, 50 percent of those in any profession are below average. In software engineering much more than half are, in my opinion, not qualified. They get into the field for the wrong reasons. And of course Sturgeon's Law applies: Ninety percent of anything is crap. But a very important factor in the low quality of most software (particularly that which comes from Microsoft) is that development is dictated by clueless PHBs who are market driven and have little or no concept of engineering principles. Most of the "bad" useable code I've seen has been full of evidence of undisciplined and lazy practice...those who lack the patience and discipline to do things properly, to sell the sort of rubbish we see every day. Again, that's mostly due to management, although we programmers share some of the blame. It takes a long time to build up a sufficient level of discipline and to learn enough about sound engineering practices. And it takes a hell of a lot of guts for one who has reached that level to say no to the clueless boss. That's why businesses don't want to hire older engineers--they don't like hearing "no". As a result, most software is written by underqualified newbies, thereby validating Sturgeon's Law. In the end analysis, it's not a language issue. One can write crap in any language, or one can write beautiful, elegant code in any language (except possibly Basic :-). |
