Didn't you see the comment I put above the article? I should have defined it better; I work with tons of people who view that as good code. More objects, more code, more everything. Then it's good code. It's a super-OOP methodology that I think many of them couldn't get out of. So if they look at a class of mine that doesn't make use of a ton of objects, that's 'bad code'. The definition of 'good code' in this article strictly pertains to those people who view it that way. By the title, I meant if you think tons of objects and extra stuff is good code, then stop writing good code, and focus on the software, the end result for the user.