<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: Results Matter</title> <atom:link href="http://www.symphonious.net/2008/05/22/results-matter/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.symphonious.net/2008/05/22/results-matter/</link> <description>Living in a state of accord.</description> <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 01:07:58 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <item><title>By: Adrian Sutton</title><link>http://www.symphonious.net/2008/05/22/results-matter/comment-page-1/#comment-159569</link> <dc:creator>Adrian Sutton</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2008 06:07:50 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.symphonious.net/?p=852#comment-159569</guid> <description>Elegance, no - elegance doesn&#039;t matter.  If it&#039;s unmaintainable slop then yes you do need to improve things. The key is to worry about maintainability rather than elegance. The phrase &quot;any old slop&quot; tends to indicate a lack of design, unit testing and lots of code duplication all of which would cause serious maintainability problems. It doesn&#039;t need to be the neatest or most efficient way of doing something as long as the intent is clear.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Elegance, no &#8211; elegance doesn&#8217;t matter.  If it&#8217;s unmaintainable slop then yes you do need to improve things. The key is to worry about maintainability rather than elegance. The phrase &#8220;any old slop&#8221; tends to indicate a lack of design, unit testing and lots of code duplication all of which would cause serious maintainability problems. It doesn&#8217;t need to be the neatest or most efficient way of doing something as long as the intent is clear.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Scott Thomason</title><link>http://www.symphonious.net/2008/05/22/results-matter/comment-page-1/#comment-159473</link> <dc:creator>Scott Thomason</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 25 May 2008 20:39:09 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.symphonious.net/?p=852#comment-159473</guid> <description>Let&#039;s bend your argument a bit to discuss a problem I experience on a frequent basis. What if it&#039;s not the programming language that&#039;s inelegant, but the programmer(s)? Do you let them use any old slop as long as it gets the job done, or do you hold them to certain standards of elegance?
---scott</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let&#8217;s bend your argument a bit to discuss a problem I experience on a frequent basis. What if it&#8217;s not the programming language that&#8217;s inelegant, but the programmer(s)? Do you let them use any old slop as long as it gets the job done, or do you hold them to certain standards of elegance?<br
/> &#8212;scott</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
