Ugly programs are like ugly suspension bridges: they're much more liable to collapse than pretty ones, because the way humans (especially engineer-humans) perceive beauty is intimately related to our ability to process and understand complexity. A language that makes it hard to write elegant code makes it hard to write good code.
Interpretation
The quality of code is influenced by its complexity and beauty, affecting its reliability.
Eric S. Raymond emphasizes that aesthetically pleasing code often correlates with lower complexity and higher reliability. When programs are well-structured and elegant, they are easier for engineers to understand and maintain, reducing the likelihood of errors and failures, akin to how attractive bridges are perceived as more structurally sound.
In practice
In a tech conference discussing software development best practices.
Rushing to optimize before the bottlenecks are known may be the only error to have ruined more designs than feature creep. From tortured code to incomprehensible data layouts, the results of obsessing about speed or memory or disk usage at the expense of transparency and simplicity are everywhere. They spawn innumerable bugs and cost millions of man-hours - often, just to get marginal gains in the use of some resource much less expensive than debugging time
Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow (e.g., given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix obvious to someone).
Software is largely a service industry operating under the persistent but unfounded delusion that it is a manufacturing industry
If we can put a man on the moon and sequence the human genome, we should be able to devise something close to a universal digital public library.
The fundamental problem with program maintenance is that fixing a defect has a substantial chance of introducing another.
Bullhorns are overrated: having ten times as many Twitter followers generates approximately zero times as much value.
We're all vulnerable to social approval. The need to belong, to be approved or appreciated by our peers is among the highest human motivations. But now our social approval is in the hands of tech companies.
Programmers are not to be measured by their ingenuity and their logic but by the completeness of their case analysis.
Do I really want to do a mobile game that's one of 300,000, where discoverability is everything? You really have to have a little more sizzle on the steak. I would rather be one of 100 apps for Google Glass than one of 300,000 for iOS and Android.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.