[reedlaw]

Great article, but doesn't address the fundamental issue: defining quality. Other than some objective metrics like code coverage, there is little agreement about what constitutes good code. The closest thing to a consensus might be the rules encoded in linters/formatters. Each Rubocop or eslint rule had to go through code review and public scrutiny to be included and maintained. Most often the rules are customized per project/team. Of course this runs into the same problem the article mentions: narrowness of vision. It seems the only way to achieve a high-minded ideal is the BDFL model of software development.

[nikisweeting]

Unrelated to parent thread: Sorry to ping you here @Reedlaw but it appears the email on your personal site is rejecting incoming mail.

I'm trying to reach you regarding an older rubygems package you maintain. We're trying to offer you some $ to rename it because we maintain a large project with the same name in other languages and want to start offering it in ruby. I sent you a connect request + message on Linkedin from https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicksweeting/