Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #81661

Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code

Show all headers | View raw

On 2026-01-31, Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:

> Le 26-01-2026, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> a écrit :
>
>>    First-passed at code are often inefficient. The first
>>    goal is just to Make It Work.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>    However no good programmer should LEAVE it at that. Refine, polish,
>>    de-crap for the 2nd pass.
>
> I don't agree here. It really depends on your goal. If your program is a
> one time script designed to avoid you hours of manual stuff, then if the
> first pass took you half an hour to work, it's enough and a good
> programmer should leave it like that. Now, if your script is designed
> only for you to be used from time to time, you should take some time to
> take care of some edge case which can appear in your environment. But
> you shouldn't take too much time with things that doesn't concern you.
> And if your purpose is to provide your program to the entire world,
> then, yes at that time you should polish it and take care of every edge
> case that can happen.
>
> But a good programmer doesn't have to consider he's writing a code
> designed for the entire world each time he's starting to write a little
> program.

Although I agree with you in principle, you have to be careful.
Consider the case of a one-shot program you wrote to create a
listing that was only going to be used during a clean-up effort.
Then some manager sees it and says, "Hey, I _like_ this report!
Have a copy on my desk every Monday morning."

Hence one of my Words to Live By:  A one-shot program is one
that you'll only need once... this week.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  Growth for the sake of
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  growth is the ideology
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  of the cancer cell.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Edward Abbey

Back to comp.os.linux.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

The Value of a 2nd Look At Code c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-24 21:55 -0500
  Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-01-25 11:07 +0000
    Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-01-25 17:14 +0000
      Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-25 21:52 -0500
        Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-01-26 08:18 -0800
          Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-26 13:04 -0500
          Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-01-27 01:26 +0000
          Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2026-01-27 08:58 +0100
            Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-01-29 08:26 +1000
              Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-28 23:10 -0500
        Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-01-31 10:26 +0000
          Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-01-31 19:39 +0000
            Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-31 23:57 -0500
      Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-01-26 07:09 -0500
        Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-01-27 01:26 +0000
          Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-27 01:23 -0500
            Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-27 10:24 +0000
      Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-01-31 10:16 +0000
        Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-01 03:04 +0000
        Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-02-02 08:44 -0800
          Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-02 21:27 +0000
            Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-02 21:06 -0500
    Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-01-25 17:53 +0000
      Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-25 21:52 -0500
    Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-25 19:16 +0000
      Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-25 21:58 -0500
        Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-01-26 04:33 +0000
          Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-26 04:46 +0000
            Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-26 01:05 -0500
            Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-01-27 01:26 +0000
              Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-27 05:13 +0000
          Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-26 00:44 -0500
      Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-01-26 07:11 -0500

csiph-web