OT: Crazy Programming

[Peter Hansen]

Chris wrote:
> 
> In article <3CE05339.6660B6BA at engcorp.com>,
>  Peter Hansen <peter at engcorp.com> wrote:
> 
> > You've said there's a danger in things being too obvious, and that there
> > are advantages to a bit of ambiguity, but you haven't yet stated what
> > that danger nor what those advantages might be.
> 
> The danger is stagnation.  A certain approach works, so that's what gets
> used, even when there are other better(shorter, more readable, more
> consistent, more elegant, faster, more "direct", etc.) ways of
> approaching a problem.

Seems to me that the obvious approach is highly likely already to be
the shorter, more readable, more consistent, etc. approach, but maybe
that's just me...

> > Personally, I reject both of them outright, after starting with the
> > premise that when programming I'm engaged in a practical endeavour,
> > not an artistic one.
> 
> With all of the people I know who've gone into "computer science"
> because "they can make a lot of money", and not because they have any
> kind of passion for it, I take a bit of offense at that idea.

I believe you're confusing two separate issues.  Passion and
art are orthogonal concepts.  I have a great deal of passion
for programming and technology.  I just don't need to find
non-practical "artistic" approaches to doing it most of the
time.  I take pleasure in noticing the occasional exceptionally
elegant design or approach, but to make those an explicit goal
is, to me, counter-productive.  But I guess we're way into 
religious territory, so I've said enough... :-)

-Peter