|
|
|
|
|
by atomicnature
1031 days ago
|
|
You refuse to define the problem in a comprehensive way in the first place. That's the meta-problem :) The second issue is that you think it is impossible to define an "abstract good" in code quality given a specific context (team, product, market). The "abstract good" stems on its own for the given internal culture and market situation. Through some common sense examples, it is easy to see how "abstract good" wields influence on "practical parameters" critical to business survival/thriving. As an analogy, I can say the "body is healthy". I am aggregating a bunch of metrics to say - "this is healthy". It doesn't mean the term "healthy" is meaningless. The term "healthy" has useful meaning although not at a mathematically precise level. One could even argue that the term "healthy" captures something even precise mathematics cannot capture (it's abstracted at a higher level). Apply similar argument to the term "code quality". Edit: Maybe it is better to explore the idea of code quality "via-negativa". Find what's actively harming beneficial outcomes. And remove it. If you cannot find many harmful things, then it has high code quality. |
|
You can call that good code if you want, but my argument is to stop caring about the code’s “quality”, as a value it carries independent of the problem.