Thursday, September 18, 2008

Definition of good quality solutions

Recently I heard a new definition for what a good quality solution should be like:

  • robust and stable

  • easily maintainable

  • good performance

  • good user experience

If asked I would have listed this somewhat differently, but my point is rather:

This must be the most obvious thing. Could this possibly be necessary to say?
(Note: Was not directed at me :))

Could someone possibly try to create ..
  • nonrobust

  • unstable

  • hard to maintain

  • lousy performance

  • poor user experience
.. code deliberately?

I doubt it.

You won't always be able to do it - there's always compromises (maintainability+performance, time-contraints, etc), but still.

There's not really much point to this post. I just wanted to make a point. Or something.

No comments: