Re:Why bad scientific code beats code following “best practi...
by jtrtoo on Sunday August 28, 2016 @05:58PM
(#12378738)
Yes. Unfortunately, as with driving, the vast majority of us think we're better than we are. It's good to have confidence, but near impossible to know when we're over estimating our own capabilities ... until it's too late.
In this case it's also more difficult because one doesn't always see the end results of their output, which may also be years down the road (no pun intended).
Re:Why bad scientific code beats code following “best practi...
by qwertyuiop924 on Sunday August 28, 2016 @07:26PM
(#12379048)
That's why becoming an master requires experience: you need experience to know what's good and bad, down the line.
A mediocre programmer uses ideas and abstractions they've heard about being good ideas for this scenario, and just runs with it, occaisionally rewriting as needed.
A good programmer carefully figures out what abstractions and ideas are appropriate for the job at hand, studying and rewriting until they're sure they've gotten them right, and uses them.
A master programmer uses the first abstractions and ideas to pop into their head: they've been at this long enough to know the right approach.