Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 08:22:39PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> Imagine I got run over by a train, and someone was reading my code.
>>> Which would be easier for them to maintain: Code with weird SQL, or code
>>> with sensible, well-written SQL and explicit hints?
>> You forgot the most important option:
>>
>> Code with appropriate documentation about your weird SQL.
>>
>> If you document your code, your argument is moot.
>
> You apparently didn't read the whole email. He said he did document his
> code. But his point is still valid: obscure code is bad even with
> documentation. Would you put something from the obfuscated C contest
> into production with comments describing what it does, or would you just
> write the code cleanly to begin with?
You are comparing apples to oranges. We aren't talking about an
obfuscated piece of code. We are talking about an SQL statement that
solves a particular problem.
That can easily be documented, and documented with enough verbosity that
it is never a question, except to test and see if the problem exists in
current versions.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/