Comments on: Reducing the cost of change http://jonkruger.com/blog/2010/07/30/reducing-the-cost-of-change/ Fri, 18 May 2012 01:24:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Tweets that mention Jon Kruger’s Blog » Reducing the cost of change -- Topsy.com http://jonkruger.com/blog/2010/07/30/reducing-the-cost-of-change/comment-page-1/#comment-5036 Tweets that mention Jon Kruger’s Blog » Reducing the cost of change -- Topsy.com Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:19:47 +0000 http://jonkruger.com/blog/?p=580#comment-5036 [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jon Kruger and Tim Wingfield, Chris Stroud. Chris Stroud said: RT @timwingfield: Another good one from @jonkruger - Reducing the cost of change: http://bit.ly/aZDUnV [...] [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jon Kruger and Tim Wingfield, Chris Stroud. Chris Stroud said: RT @timwingfield: Another good one from @jonkruger - Reducing the cost of change: http://bit.ly/aZDUnV [...]

]]> By: Tim http://jonkruger.com/blog/2010/07/30/reducing-the-cost-of-change/comment-page-1/#comment-5035 Tim Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:56:39 +0000 http://jonkruger.com/blog/?p=580#comment-5035 A nice phrase I heard from Alan Stevens to combat: “Clever code” is the opposite of clean code. "Beauty is the ultimate defense against complexity." True, it's not word for word the same because some people will equate clever == shorter == beautiful. But, if you keep your code clean, readable, and by design beautiful it'll be much more fun to work in. A nice phrase I heard from Alan Stevens to combat: “Clever code” is the opposite of clean code.

“Beauty is the ultimate defense against complexity.”

True, it’s not word for word the same because some people will equate clever == shorter == beautiful. But, if you keep your code clean, readable, and by design beautiful it’ll be much more fun to work in.

]]> By: MIchael Meadows http://jonkruger.com/blog/2010/07/30/reducing-the-cost-of-change/comment-page-1/#comment-5034 MIchael Meadows Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:52:51 +0000 http://jonkruger.com/blog/?p=580#comment-5034 In response to the inevitable "You'll always need QA" argument: Yes, you'll always need QA, but now they can focus on testing edge cases and the risk that your changes create to the system, instead of retesting things that already work. This is because they will (eventually) learn to trust the fact that developers will ensure that stable features remain stable. In response to the inevitable “You’ll always need QA” argument:

Yes, you’ll always need QA, but now they can focus on testing edge cases and the risk that your changes create to the system, instead of retesting things that already work. This is because they will (eventually) learn to trust the fact that developers will ensure that stable features remain stable.

]]>