> is an attack against the entire idea of writing good quality code:
> 'It may not be possible for us to ever reach empirical definitions of "good code" or "clean code"'
I read it as an attack against the idea that there are hard and fast, objective and empirically verifiable rules for good quality code. The Clean Code book itself is a perfect example of how subjective such rules are. I feel really sorry for you if the only methods for software development that you know are "brute force it by throwing thousands of engineers at a giant ball of spaghetti code" and sticking a book that has some fanatic supporters. "Readable", "maintainable", "succint" or "efficient" don't really describe Martin's examples and many functional programming enthusiasts would question "composable" too. Yes, I wasted several hours of my life reading that book and I'm never getting them back.
I read it as an attack against the idea that there are hard and fast, objective and empirically verifiable rules for good quality code. The Clean Code book itself is a perfect example of how subjective such rules are. I feel really sorry for you if the only methods for software development that you know are "brute force it by throwing thousands of engineers at a giant ball of spaghetti code" and sticking a book that has some fanatic supporters. "Readable", "maintainable", "succint" or "efficient" don't really describe Martin's examples and many functional programming enthusiasts would question "composable" too. Yes, I wasted several hours of my life reading that book and I'm never getting them back.