My comments are based on a situation where a small team that included me both developed and did maintainance on an evolving codebase over time. I was one of the maintainance coders (and was the fallback if things got out of hand), and don't think that lack of ability on the part of the maintainers was an issue.
Rather my comments have to do with a recognition of the fact that good coding is all about making code clear and understandable. It isn't about showing off how crazy a line of punctuation you can spew to get things done in 2 less lines. If you have someone who has that priority wrong, and thinks that their demonstrations of cleverness are a good thing, they either need to learn better, or if uneducable, be fired.
As for the good environment that you praise, just think about how someone who was cocky and determined to lay claim to stardom would have fit in. Not well, huh? Well those are the people who I am pointing out as being problems. By contrast the simple awareness of what will and won't be understood based on the feedback you describe is enough to achieve the goal that I am after. Not a binding of good programmers with sufficient rules to make them by force understandable to relative idiots, but just an awareness of how the team works, and what kind of code will be clear to the rest of the group.
In reply to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Perl aptitude test
by tilly
in thread A Perl aptitude test
by Jonathan
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |