News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Code Is Never “Perfect”, Code Is Only Ever “Good Enough”. Parent comment

Re:Code Is Never “Perfect”, Code Is Only Ever “Good Enough” by cwbrandsma on Monday July 18, 2016 @04:26PM (#12117864)
I get really twitchy when I read statements like yours. But I am completely unreasonable in my definition of perfect -- it is really beyond extreme. Perfect is an absolute, so by definition it is unobtainable. Perfect means you have gone beyond the notion of executes correctly every single time, but MUST also be aesthetically perfect. Perfect names, perfect formatting, perfect location etc. No one can meet my criteria for perfect and never will (I can't).

In that sense, there is no perfect code, nor will there ever be. There will only EVER be good enough.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Code Is Never “Perfect”, Code Is Only Ever “Good Enough” by jungrothmorton on Monday July 18, 2016 @06:20PM (#12118368)
You’ve created a concept and attached the word “perfect" to it. Your concept is different than the shared definition. This leads to disagreements, misunderstandings, and (as you said) twitching.

The purpose of words is to share information. If you have write a paragraph describing your definition when you use a word, use a different one.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Code Is Never “Perfect”, Code Is Only Ever “Good Enough” by cwbrandsma on Monday July 18, 2016 @06:26PM (#12118383)
Not really. When I look up the definition, it is 'completely free of faults or defect'. I don't think I've strayed past that meaning.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Code Is Never “Perfect”, Code Is Only Ever “Good Enough” by betenoire on Monday July 18, 2016 @06:34PM (#12118419)
yes you have. you've moved it into the subjective by requiring pleasing aesthetics
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Code Is Never “Perfect”, Code Is Only Ever “Good Enough” by khedoros on Monday July 18, 2016 @07:31PM (#12118602)
Perfection is subjective because flaws are subjective. Aesthetics are part of the code. If a piece of code is functionally perfect but ugly or inelegant by some measure, then it is imperfect by that measure.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Code Is Never “Perfect”, Code Is Only Ever “Good Enough” by betenoire on Monday July 18, 2016 @07:41PM (#12118626)
right, flaws are subjective. I'll try that one on my QA team next time they file a bug report ;)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Code Is Never “Perfect”, Code Is Only Ever “Good Enough” by snovv_crash on Tuesday July 19, 2016 @04:18AM (#12120525)
There is more than one class of flaw. Some are objective, ie. fail to meet spec. Some are subjective, typically where the spec doesn't cover.

If software functions correctly but is unnecessarily hard to use due to (eg.) bad layout, would you still call it perfect?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Code Is Never “Perfect”, Code Is Only Ever “Good Enough” by rjbwork on Monday July 18, 2016 @07:12PM (#12118538)
>has tabs

>literally trash

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Code Is Never “Perfect”, Code Is Only Ever “Good Enough” by vorotato on Monday July 18, 2016 @04:38PM (#12117931)
Why have the word perfect then?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Code Is Never “Perfect”, Code Is Only Ever “Good Enough” by aurelianito on Monday July 18, 2016 @05:04PM (#12118046)
For the same reason we have the word infinity.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Code Is Never “Perfect”, Code Is Only Ever “Good Enough” by fallo on Monday July 18, 2016 @05:36PM (#12118193)
But infinity does exist...?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Code Is Never “Perfect”, Code Is Only Ever “Good Enough” by ChristianBundy on Tuesday July 19, 2016 @12:19AM (#12119620)
Infinity exists the same way that perfection exists. Abstractly.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Code Is Never “Perfect”, Code Is Only Ever “Good Enough” by abakker on Monday July 18, 2016 @04:54PM (#12118004)
idealism?
[ Parent | on HN ]