[golergka]

> Write the code that does the stuff.

But that's far from what I usually want from my code.

I want the code that is easy to change, code that I understand, code that is reliable, code that works well with garbage data, code that will still be maintainable after I extend it. Having reasonable performance (notice, I'm not saying the best performance, just reasonable) is a must, too.

And in most other cases, when I move to a new tech, I get most of it pretty quickly. Of course, there's some learning involved, but I never aim just for code that "does the stuff". Just "doing the stuff" is so abysmally insufficient for good software that I don't expect any programmer to be satisfied with this single requirement.

[adamwong246]

And yet, having a product that just just barely holds together is the best I could have hoped for, given the time and money constraints. And my barely working stack of crap is better than most other products, because most folks can't even get that far.

Easy to change? Reliable?! Maintainable?!?

Bah humbug! Who needs it? Not me. I'll probably trash this version anyways! If I can get the thing to do one thing reasonable well, it's a winner. The code quality is always secondary to actually getting something done. Once you have a product and some customers and you've proven that it won't explode, then we can talk about performance. But I've seen too many projects strangled under the high-minded ideals of better programmers than I.