Hacker News Reader

Comment by cwbrandsma | Hacker News Reader

I get really twitchy when I read statements like yours. But I am completely unreasonable in my definition of perfect -- it is really beyond extreme. Perfect is an absolute, so by definition it is unobtainable. Perfect means you have gone beyond the notion of executes correctly every single time, but MUST also be aesthetically perfect. Perfect names, perfect formatting, perfect location etc. No one can meet my criteria for perfect and never will (I can't).

In that sense, there is no perfect code, nor will there ever be. There will only EVER be good enough.

View on HN

You’ve created a concept and attached the word “perfect" to it. Your concept is different than the shared definition. This leads to disagreements, misunderstandings, and (as you said) twitching.

The purpose of words is to share information. If you have write a paragraph describing your definition when you use a word, use a different one.

Not really. When I look up the definition, it is 'completely free of faults or defect'. I don't think I've strayed past that meaning.

yes you have. you've moved it into the subjective by requiring pleasing aesthetics

>has tabs

>literally trash

Perfection is subjective because flaws are subjective. Aesthetics are part of the code. If a piece of code is functionally perfect but ugly or inelegant by some measure, then it is imperfect by that measure.

right, flaws are subjective. I'll try that one on my QA team next time they file a bug report ;)

There is more than one class of flaw. Some are objective, ie. fail to meet spec. Some are subjective, typically where the spec doesn't cover.

If software functions correctly but is unnecessarily hard to use due to (eg.) bad layout, would you still call it perfect?

Why have the word perfect then?

idealism?

For the same reason we have the word infinity.

But infinity does exist...?

Infinity exists the same way that perfection exists. Abstractly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com