Skip to main content
26 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Dec 23, 2015 at 17:49 answer added user204677 timeline score: 2
Jul 30, 2015 at 0:37 answer added OverCoder timeline score: 0
Jul 29, 2015 at 22:26 answer added rdalmeida timeline score: 0
Jan 19, 2013 at 18:32 vote accept user997112
Dec 27, 2012 at 1:02 history tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackProgrammer/status/284101976369795072
Dec 26, 2012 at 21:58 comment added Thijs van Dien Ugly and inelegant are different things.
Dec 25, 2012 at 7:31 comment added rwong Data-oriented design (see this and this) is an example where both the code and the data structure are organized under a different paradigm to achieve higher speed. People familiar with the paradigm will swear by it, while people who don't know it swear about it.
Dec 21, 2012 at 22:00 answer added Mike Dunlavey timeline score: 0
Dec 21, 2012 at 4:19 answer added Caleb timeline score: 1
Dec 20, 2012 at 3:57 comment added ZJR I don't get the [java] tag
Dec 20, 2012 at 3:20 answer added Erik Reppen timeline score: 2
Dec 20, 2012 at 2:27 answer added BillThor timeline score: 2
Dec 20, 2012 at 1:42 comment added yannis @Carson63000, user1598390 and whoever else is interested: If the question ends up closed, feel free to ask about the closure on our Meta site, there's little point in discussing a closure in comments, especially a closure that hasn't happened. Also, keep in mind that every closed question can be re-opened, it's not the end of the world. Except of course if the Mayans were right, in which case it was nice knowing you all!
Dec 19, 2012 at 14:23 comment added Tulains Córdova He who wants to write ugly code will always find an excuse to do so.
Dec 19, 2012 at 3:32 answer added rwong timeline score: 4
Dec 19, 2012 at 2:55 answer added Josh Tollefson timeline score: 5
Dec 19, 2012 at 2:02 comment added James The source code for LMAX's Disruptor isn't too ugly. There are some 'to hell with Java's security model' (Unsafe class) parts and some hardware specific modifications (cache-line padded variables) but it's very readable IMO.
Dec 18, 2012 at 23:01 comment added johannes As a note: Stroustrup provides the "Joint Strike Fighter" coding standards, those where made to develop software on a fighting plane, so quite strict predictability rules etc apply. Might give an idea stroustrup.com/JSF-AV-rules.pdf
Dec 18, 2012 at 22:39 comment added Blrfl I'll stick my neck out: I cast the third vote to close as "not constructive" because I think the questioner pretty much answers his own question. "Beautiful" code that doesn't run fast enough to do the job has failed to meet the latency requirement. "Ugly" code that runs fast enough can be made more maintainable through good documentation. How you measure beauty or ugliness is a topic for another question.
Dec 18, 2012 at 22:35 comment added Robert Harvey Anecdotally, I'd say that the reason this question is attracting close votes is that it may be being perceived as a thinly-veiled rant (although I don't think it is).
Dec 18, 2012 at 22:30 comment added Robert Harvey @user997112: The close reason is self explanatory. It says: "We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. Doesn't necessarily mean they're correct, but that was the close reason chosen by all three close voters.
Dec 18, 2012 at 21:51 history edited user997112 CC BY-SA 3.0
edited body
Dec 18, 2012 at 21:51 answer added Ryathal timeline score: 2
Dec 18, 2012 at 21:41 review Close votes
Dec 19, 2012 at 1:44
Dec 18, 2012 at 21:28 answer added Robert Harvey timeline score: 31
Dec 18, 2012 at 21:23 history asked user997112 CC BY-SA 3.0