Louis J Scoras wrote:
> On 6/9/06, Kyrre Nygard <kyrreny / broadpark.no> wrote:
> 
>> You're making a good point here. But to me it feels like a "if it works
>> don't fix it" kind of thing. I mean, all in all, wouldn't Ruby prevail?
>>
>> Feel free to show me some examples though.
> 
> 
>    # mp32ogg [untested] - quick and dirty conversion:
>    mpg321 -w - somesong.mp3 | oggenc -o somesong.ogg -
> 

Question (maybe a bit off-topic):

The example may be quick, but in what way is it dirty?

More generally, why do those two words get used as if they were joined 
at the hip?    Is there a bias against being quick, a belief quick only 
comes at the cost of clean code?

This "quick and dirty" dismissal comes up fairly often when describing 
Ruby to the skeptical ("Well, Ruby may be good for quickandirty scripts, 
but ..." ).

My usual response is that I prefer quick and dirty to slow and dirty; 
Java or C# (the usual suggested alternatives for "real" programming) 
offer no more assurance of clean code than using Ruby; indeed, the 
opposite is likely more the case.

Just curious.

-- 
James Britt

"Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally
  for machines to execute."
   - H. Abelson and G. Sussman
   (in "The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs)