Comments on: Reusable code vs. re-editable code

By: Why programmers are not paid in proportion to their productivity — The Endeavour

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:24:10 +0000

[...] doesn’t actually want what they’re asking for. They may know where to find reusable or re-editable code that solves their problem. They may cheat. But just when they are being their most productive, [...]

By: Opening black boxes — The Endeavour

Opening black boxes — The Endeavour — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 13:20:56 +0000

[...] Reusable code versus re-editable code ? X [...]

By: Olivier

Olivier — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 21:37:54 +0000

On the other hand, standard library code is reusable code, not re-editable code. But it’s so good that it’s ok to reuse it even if you don’t edit it. Reusing printf is fine.

By: Anon

Anon — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:35:05 +0000

“Good code is easy to change.
All code will change until it is no longer easy to change.
All code becomes bad code.”

–Unknown

Basic lessons in entropy, applied to programming…

By: Dave Doolin

Dave Doolin — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 04:15:49 +0000

I can see both sides of this coin, and offer a more personal take on the subject: re-usable code is code that *I* can re-edit!

The art of developing interfaces to libraries to promote “black box” re-usability of code is something not covered (to my knowledge) in TAOCP, nor should it be.