[nSLUG] Looking for a DNS secondary partner
ian at slu.ms
Mon May 4 14:51:51 ADT 2009
On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 10:52:19AM -0300, D G Teed wrote:
> On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Ian Campbell <ian at slu.ms> wrote:
> > I don't think you need to be pure of heart to write good code, nor do
> > I have the faintest idea what "self-serving" or "altruistic" means in
> > the context of code anyway. For all his personal and personality
> > defects, Reiser knew what he was doing.
> I don't know how much commercial code development
> you've seen, but I have seen cases where there is a difference.
> Code developed for a product is often deployed in-house and enhanced
> at first for in-house needs. Later, as major customers use the beta
> version (ahrm, I meant version 1.0), they make live or die demands on
> features they need. Sometimes, it will break features needed
> for the in-house use, or in the least, lead to a great amount of
> code bloat, or additional daemons to be present. There is a difference
> in developing code that "gets by" and code that will withstand
> trouble and a broader range of deployments than one developer
> could not anticipate.
> I can't say I can avoid running crappy code completely,
> as some decisions are out of my hands.
> For example yum on Redhat, and their missing error checking code
> (e.g. opens files without checking they exist - no error handler).
> Spews useless python back trace. Utterly pathetic stuff
> any first year C.S. coder would know not to do.
Maybe the person who wrote it doesn't know what they're doing. Maybe
there are no unit tests, maybe there's no code review. Maybe they
committed it at 3AM and never got around to testing it. None of those
are particularly good, but I don't see it as a deep personal failing
on the part of the yum guys.
None of this has anything to do with "self-serving" or "altruistic."
Blessed are the pure of heart, but that doesn't mean they can code.
More information about the nSLUG