On: Code Is Never “Perfect”, Code Is Only Ever “Good E...

[cwbrandsma]

Not really. When I look up the definition, it is 'completely free of faults or defect'. I don't think I've strayed past that meaning.

[betenoire → cwbrandsma]

yes you have. you've moved it into the subjective by requiring pleasing aesthetics

[khedoros → betenoire]

Perfection is subjective because flaws are subjective. Aesthetics are part of the code. If a piece of code is functionally perfect but ugly or inelegant by some measure, then it is imperfect by that measure.

[betenoire → khedoros]

right, flaws are subjective. I'll try that one on my QA team next time they file a bug report ;)

[snovv_crash → betenoire]

There is more than one class of flaw. Some are objective, ie. fail to meet spec. Some are subjective, typically where the spec doesn't cover.

If software functions correctly but is unnecessarily hard to use due to (eg.) bad layout, would you still call it perfect?

[rjbwork → betenoire]

>has tabs

>literally trash