Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.mixmin.net!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.teledata-fn.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-ID: <2055880.9alNe96dWn@PointedEars.de>
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <php@PointedEars.de>
Organization: PointedEars Software (PES)
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 23:59:57 +0200
User-Agent: KNode/4.4.11
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
Subject: Re: Dynamic form generation
Newsgroups: comp.lang.php
References: <7262665.439.1334202496427.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbgx21> <vilain-8CE047.21522911042012@news.individual.net> <4f86cda7$0$2912$a8266bb1@newsreader.readnews.com> <6651622.883.1334288601914.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbfj25> <bWRhr.125797$Js7.110892@fx16.am4> <slrnjoj0b7.4ci.hellsop@nibelheim.ninehells.com> <oRuir.84310$H11.42340@fx23.am4> <jmeg9a$5pt$2@dont-email.me> <cNQir.139600$bA2.91936@fx20.am4> <jmh3iq$f4m$1@dont-email.me> <oMVir.126156$8i.19574@fx19.am4> <jmhd8m$6jr$1@dont-email.me> <7I9jr.212617$sE1.169738@fx22.am4> <jmjfdk$vmp$1@dont-email.me> <gGujr.123754$lq1.27093@fx18.am4> <jmmauq$9ke$1@dont-email.me> <f0Qjr.221591$o93.75144@fx05.am4> <jmp154$4tt$1@dont-email.me> <bK9kr.300805$xD4.33148@fx06.am4>
Followup-To: comp.lang.php
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lines: 65
NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Apr 2012 23:59:58 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64821a6.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: DXC=:0e9UC=mKb\V0Pe9PRnbJ\A9EHlD;3YcR4Fo<]lROoRQ8kF<OcfhCO[T`38E:`OojXDZm8W4\YJN\J`:FmdeL>KPfQ>EOE\[m`[SfODC;00D\Q
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.php:5664

Tony Marston wrote:

> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote:
>> On 4/19/2012 4:27 AM, Tony Marston wrote:
>>> "Jerry Stuckle"<jstucklex@attglobal.net>  wrote in message
>>> news:jmmauq$9ke$1@dont-email.me...
> <snip>
>>>>>> You've been doing it that badly all this time?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not according to my fellow developers and paying customers.
>>>> First rule is that customers don't know anything about good coding. 
>>>> And
>>>> your fellow developers could easily be as bad as you.  No credibility
>>>> there.
>>> Delivering code which satisfies the client takes a higher priority than
>>> writing code which satisfies other programmers. It is not possible to
>>> write code which satisfies EVERY programmer on the plant as they all
>>> have different ideas as to what "best practice" actually is.
>>
>> It is when you're only doing simple stuff.  REAL programmers concentrate
>> on making their code MAINTAINABLE.

Full ACK.  I have never cared if the client would accept or even understand 
my code; indeed, if I told my boss that from now on I would be writing code 
that way, I would probably be fired on the spot because it does not pay.  My 
clients so far are not programmers; it is difficult for them to understand 
the basic concepts of programming to begin with.

The client has ordered an application for a price, and they are going to get 
the best application that can I can do for that price, with a profit margin, 
an error margin, and future maintenance in mind.  As a result, my fellow 
developers are going to get the best maintainable code that I can write 
under those conditions (which really is not hard to do once you have 
accustomed yourself to some basic rules and tools of software development).

> You have no basis on which to make the statement that my code is
> unmaintainable. My code has been reviewed by many others, and the vast
> majority have nothing but compliments.

This is a common fallacy, a self-fulfilling prophecy, that many developers 
try to rationalize (their) bad code quality with.  For you cannot know how 
many people have read the code *and* found it so bad that they did not care 
to point out its flaws to you.  Nor can you know how knowledgable the people 
are who have reviewed the code and found it to be good.

However, inevitably there are more people not knowing what they are doing 
than people knowing what they are doing: for any given field, there are many 
laymen, fewer intermediates, and very few experts.  So the odds are against 
that from the mere majority of a randomly selected set of opinions a 
realistic assessment of any subject can be derived.  This applies especially 
to source code as software development is a very special field.  And the 
odds are against that expert in that field would bother complaining about 
bad code of others as they – being skilled in writing good code – would 
simply write the code to solve the problem themselves, if need be, or just 
move on to your competition.


HTH

PointedEars, with a fitting random signature
-- 
> If you get a bunch of authors […] that state the same "best practices"
> in any programming language, then you can bet who is wrong or right...
Not with javascript. Nonsense propagates like wildfire in this field.
  -- Richard Cornford, comp.lang.javascript, 2011-11-14