2 Copy edited.
source | link

I find your post interesting. I'veI've often shared views with your subject, and her feeling is that over formalized-formalized methods are stifling. AsAs someone else noted, if she's a genius, and can track a multitude of mental notes at the same time without forgetting or getting confused, then it's quite possible to maintain a monolithic chunk of convoluted code and get it to do amazing things with completely obscure changes. There'sThere's a certain mental happiness that comes to the brains of people that can do that - it's like being a God of a little universe in your mind.

However, smart employers have learned the hard way that nobody but the original author can ever do anything worth whileworthwhile to that code. IfIf the programmer moves on, they end up wasting a lot of money figuring out that the only option is to re-write (I used to think think that meant total loss, but I realize these days that you don't destroy the intrinsic result of iterative development at the level of external functionality).

Personally, I woulnd't mind having someone like that on the team, because in a crunch, they might do something that nobody else thinks of.

On the other hand, be your own person and decide for yourself what the answer to your question is, because the only thing that's for sure is that nobody has it figured out when it comes to building software. It's one of the things that makes it an interesting field...

I find your post interesting. I've often shared views with your subject and her feeling that over formalized methods are stifling. As someone else noted, if she's a genius, and can track a multitude of mental notes at the same time without forgetting or getting confused, then it's quite possible to maintain a monolithic chunk of convoluted code and get it to do amazing things with completely obscure changes. There's a certain mental happiness that comes to the brains of people that can do that - it's like being a God of a little universe in your mind.

However, smart employers have learned the hard way that nobody but the original author can ever do anything worth while to that code. If the programmer moves on, they end up wasting a lot of money figuring out that the only option is to re-write (I used to think think that meant total loss, but I realize these days that you don't destroy the intrinsic result of iterative development at the level of external functionality).

Personally, I woulnd't mind having someone like that on the team, because in a crunch, they might do something that nobody else thinks of.

On the other hand, be your own person and decide for yourself what the answer to your question is, because the only thing that's for sure is that nobody has it figured out when it comes to building software. It's one of the things that makes it an interesting field...

I find your post interesting. I've often shared views with your subject, and her feeling is that over-formalized methods are stifling. As someone else noted, if she's a genius and can track a multitude of mental notes at the same time without forgetting or getting confused, then it's quite possible to maintain a monolithic chunk of convoluted code and get it to do amazing things with completely obscure changes. There's a certain mental happiness that comes to the brains of people that can do that - it's like being a God of a little universe in your mind.

However, smart employers have learned the hard way that nobody but the original author can ever do anything worthwhile to that code. If the programmer moves on, they end up wasting a lot of money figuring out that the only option is to re-write (I used to think that meant total loss, but I realize these days that you don't destroy the intrinsic result of iterative development at the level of external functionality).

Personally, I woulnd't mind having someone like that on the team, because in a crunch, they might do something that nobody else thinks of.

On the other hand, be your own person and decide for yourself what the answer to your question is, because the only thing that's for sure is that nobody has it figured out when it comes to building software. It's one of the things that makes it an interesting field...

    Post Merged (destination) from programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/83167/…
1
source | link

I find your post interesting. I've often shared views with your subject and her feeling that over formalized methods are stifling. As someone else noted, if she's a genius, and can track a multitude of mental notes at the same time without forgetting or getting confused, then it's quite possible to maintain a monolithic chunk of convoluted code and get it to do amazing things with completely obscure changes. There's a certain mental happiness that comes to the brains of people that can do that - it's like being a God of a little universe in your mind.

However, smart employers have learned the hard way that nobody but the original author can ever do anything worth while to that code. If the programmer moves on, they end up wasting a lot of money figuring out that the only option is to re-write (I used to think think that meant total loss, but I realize these days that you don't destroy the intrinsic result of iterative development at the level of external functionality).

Personally, I woulnd't mind having someone like that on the team, because in a crunch, they might do something that nobody else thinks of.

On the other hand, be your own person and decide for yourself what the answer to your question is, because the only thing that's for sure is that nobody has it figured out when it comes to building software. It's one of the things that makes it an interesting field...