And about as much arguing about what makes "good code" as there is about what books are good and bad.
That's what I said... But not the same can be said about a novel...
> It's very hard, and maybe impossible, to determine if a novel "works".
I wonder if there is a an assumption here about what it means to "work" vs to be "bad". Psychologically, maybe it's helpful to view each person as their own interpreter, and there is more variation there compared to (e.g.) a specific python interpreter.
But even in python I could write totally not-python code, and have the python interpreter run it (e.g. by writing a codec). And I could write beautiful code that throws an error, and have a person debug it for <some_purpose>, and in meeting that purpose it might be working.
I think the challenge here is that "work" is being defined in a narrow, technical sense for code, but is recognized in a much broader, social/cognitive sense, for novels!
I've tested some while writing my own novel, and it was more "interesting" than useful at this point, but I might give it another shot with novel #2 to contrast and compare the two.
It'll be interesting to see how those tools evolve, though.
[1] authors.ai is one example.
Bad code doesn't work.
There can be "beautiful" code that doesn't work, but it's pointless. And there are many instances of ugly, even abominable code, that does work, but... well, at least it works!
It's very hard, and maybe impossible, to determine if a novel "works". It may work for some people and not others. It may not work today and work in a hundred years, or the opposite.
We can never know. Least of all, the author herself.