I like Linus' quote, but that spirit would probably push Perl too
far into the computer scientists' language traps. Here's a Frank
Lloyd Wright quote I think works a bit better:
Five lines where three are enough is stupidity.
Nine pounds where three are sufficient is stupidity.
But to eliminate expressive words that intensify or
vivify meaning in speaking or writing is not simplicity;
nor is similar elimination in architecture simplicity--
it too may be stupidity.
Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> A true programmer is able to delete lines and still achieve the same
> functionality while simultaneously making the code shorter and simpler
> and therefore easier to understand and maintain.
There seems to be a perverse belief that to "add value" you must "add
code". I've had a lot of first-hand experience with this attitude --
often from people who should know better. One of my recent projects
took an 11,000 line gui client (Perl/Tk/Win32) and reduced it to 7,000
while porting to Unix, adding features, improving performance, etc. The
result? People don't say "wow, good work" they ask why the original
sucked.
Related to this point is the idea that software development processes
and quality methods matter more than developer capability. IMHO, given
all other things equal, better processes produce better software. The
problem is that teams are rarely equal. I think this is one reason why
Open Source ("bazaar methodology") gets much better ratings than it
should -- lots of free software is done by outstanding teams of people.
You replace those people with "industry norms" and everything falls
apart. (The one place where Open Source methods of all types are
vastly superior to everything else is their ability to educate.)
Sorry for the rant; the topic struck a nerve.
- Ken
