[FoRK] Who needs efficient code?

Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca
Thu Jul 29 22:49:51 PDT 2010

--- On Fri, 7/30/10, John Parsons <bullwinklemouth at yahoo.ca> wrote:

> As more of a user than a
> practitioner, this makes sense to me, but as in any
> endeavour, I decry the abandonment of quality.
> http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2010/07/the-beauty-of-inefficient-code/60613/

You make an assumption that doesn't seem to be warranted from any of the information presented in the article. It applauds the ability to innovate in some field that requires computer code to be created without having to be an expert coder.

It supports the notion of quality by pointing out that if the innovation needs, at some point, to scale it still requires good code.

So, one can innovate, prove the idea, gain financing .. maybe even start getting customers and revenue .. all without having to be an expert coder. Then, once the revenue is flowing and financing is available, hire the expert coder(s) to make it sing.

Or simply throw more horsepower at it and suffer the performance issues and resultant customer backlash when big failures occur, like the Twitter problems mentioned. Or when someone easily hacks the poorly secured code and the press gets wind of it.

There will always be a market for quality. In this case, it's generally a positive thing that the quality can wait a bit.

And keep in mind that sometimes Good Enough really is.


More information about the FoRK mailing list