Good books in computer science?

Lie Ryan lie.1296 at
Mon Jun 15 03:14:46 EDT 2009

Bob Martin wrote:
> in 117455 20090615 044816 Steven D'Aprano <steven at> wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:39:50 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> Shame on you for deliberately cutting out my more serious and nuanced
>>>> answer while leaving a silly quip.
>>> Can't have been very "serious and nuanced" if it could be summed up by
>>> such a "silly quip" though, could it?
>> But it can't be summed up by the silly quip, which is why I'm complaining
>> that the silly quip on its own fails to include the more serious and
>> nuanced elements of my post.
> Lots of references to "good programmer" but no attempt to define the term.
> Who is the better programmer - one who writes lousy code but produces good programs
> or one who obeys all the rules of coding but whose programs break all the time?
> (Yes, I know there are two other categories!)
> In almost 50 years programming I have met all types but I tended to judge them
> by the end results, not on their style.

A programmer that just follows the recipes for the so-called "rules of
coding" is just, as Steven says, a bad programmers. Unless you write a
program that works, you are not a programmer; once you've written one
that works, we'll see whether you're a good or bad by your style.

Points is taken when the so-called rules are followed mindlessly.

Bonus Points if you can justify your breaking rules.

No point for program that doesn't work.

More information about the Python-list mailing list