Q: How many developers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: 10. 1 to change the bulb, and 9 to say "no, I would have done it like this..."
For me, this is part of the "Is programming is a science or an art?" argument. You can send a person to Art College and then have them paint for 10 years, and even then they won't necessarily produce masterpieces. Sometimes we comment like that on code we've taken over, because it really is awful...
This is exactly the same as shouting someone down in an argument. Also, it smells of a logical fallacy - the ad baculum (Appeal to Force). In short: "I don't think you're right, and I can't seem to prove you're not right, so you'd better shut up, or it'll be the worst for you." - in threating scientists with professional disgrace if they won't toe the line. Personally, I feel that we are on the brink of an environmental catastrophe cuased by mankind, but of course, that's not the point - I do wonder, if the evidence for mankind causing global warming is so strong, why do we need to gag and discredit those brave (and in my opinion, misguided) souls who challenge the "accepted" view? As a friend of mine at school used to say, "If you can't get your point across, don't get mad, just hit them as hard as you can". Maybe we could strip Religious Instruction teachers of their Dip.Eds if they happen to support young-earth creationalism. Stop the Madness, without free scientific method and peer review, we wouldn't even know we're in trouble in the first place
Slashdot Mirror
Q: How many developers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: 10. 1 to change the bulb, and 9 to say "no, I would have done it like this..."
For me, this is part of the "Is programming is a science or an art?" argument. You can send a person to Art College and then have them paint for 10 years, and even then they won't necessarily produce masterpieces. Sometimes we comment like that on code we've taken over, because it really is awful...
This is exactly the same as shouting someone down in an argument. Also, it smells of a logical fallacy - the ad baculum (Appeal to Force). In short: "I don't think you're right, and I can't seem to prove you're not right, so you'd better shut up, or it'll be the worst for you." - in threating scientists with professional disgrace if they won't toe the line. Personally, I feel that we are on the brink of an environmental catastrophe cuased by mankind, but of course, that's not the point - I do wonder, if the evidence for mankind causing global warming is so strong, why do we need to gag and discredit those brave (and in my opinion, misguided) souls who challenge the "accepted" view? As a friend of mine at school used to say, "If you can't get your point across, don't get mad, just hit them as hard as you can". Maybe we could strip Religious Instruction teachers of their Dip.Eds if they happen to support young-earth creationalism. Stop the Madness, without free scientific method and peer review, we wouldn't even know we're in trouble in the first place