Last week I heard a Stanford researcher describe how failure can be a good thing, if we are prepared to learn from it.
I agree, although this mindset is easier to describe than to achieve. So here I’m kicking off a new series of posts about mistakes I’ve made over the years, and what I’ve learned from them. Look in the “Mistakes” category for more like this.
If you’ve followed my blog at all, you’ll know that I regularly return to the theme of what constitutes good code. Ever wonder why I don’t get more ambitious and talk about “great code” instead?
A big reason is that in software, great can be the enemy of good.
If you’re a fan of aphorisms, you’ve probably heard the opposite statement a few times: “good is the enemy of great.” People who say this are emphasizing the value of setting lofty goals, and then aligning our day-to-day lives to deeply held priorities. They remind us that settling for mediocrity is almost guaranteed not to create deep meaning or purpose. And they are quite right.
However, I submit that the greatness you should be pursuing in software is less about producing great code, and more about becoming a great producer of code. And great producers of code know that most of their creations will not optimize business value if they aim for a magnum opus. Not every commission can be the Sistine Chapel.
Don’t get me wrong. I care about the quality and artistry of code, and there is definitely great code out there. It’s just that I’ve got these battle scars…
Daniel builds a tower
In 2001, I helped design and code Continue reading