<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/wordpress-mu-1.2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Discussion on: What Constitutes Good Program Code?</title>
	<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/customapps/what-constitutes-good-program-code/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2008 04:43:50 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=wordpress-mu-1.2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: LadyRatri</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/customapps/what-constitutes-good-program-code/#comment-26</link>
		<author>LadyRatri</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:33:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/customapps/what-constitutes-good-program-code/#comment-26</guid>
		<description>Your statement about programmers who obsess over "complexifying" code from 20 lines down to 5 reminds me of a comment I have heard regarding "good" code: "Be smart -- not clever." It's a concise way to differentiate between the modularizations and reuse you talk about, and the over-optimization. Smart is clear and useful. Clever is very hard to follow -- not only reading it six months later, but for someone other than the original developer trying to understand what's going on.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your statement about programmers who obsess over &#8220;complexifying&#8221; code from 20 lines down to 5 reminds me of a comment I have heard regarding &#8220;good&#8221; code: &#8220;Be smart &#8212; not clever.&#8221; It&#8217;s a concise way to differentiate between the modularizations and reuse you talk about, and the over-optimization. Smart is clear and useful. Clever is very hard to follow &#8212; not only reading it six months later, but for someone other than the original developer trying to understand what&#8217;s going on.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
