<story><title>Programmers who want to change how we code before catastrophe strikes</title><url>https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/09/saving-the-world-from-code/540393/?single_page=true</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>valuearb</author><text>&amp;quot;For Lamport, a major reason today’s software is so full of bugs is that programmers jump straight into writing code. “Architects draw detailed plans before a brick is laid or a nail is hammered,” he wrote in an article. “But few programmers write even a rough sketch of what their programs will do before they start coding.”&lt;p&gt;I almost always dive in, but I almost always write my code twice. Essentially the first round is my rough sketch, the second is written when I fully understand the problem, which for me only occurs once I&amp;#x27;ve tried to code it.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>Latty</author><text>Exactly. This is ignoring the fact that code is a more useful blueprint than anything else for programs.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m sure if architects had the ability to magically conjure building materials out of thin air and try things in real life for free, architecture would involve a lot more trying and a lot less planning.&lt;p&gt;Of course, I&amp;#x27;m sure the article is talking about people just rushing into production code without thought, and I get that is a problem. It&amp;#x27;s just when people make comparisons like that it can imply this horrendous future where we whiteboard program for months, which is just a terrible idea.</text></comment>
<story><title>Programmers who want to change how we code before catastrophe strikes</title><url>https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/09/saving-the-world-from-code/540393/?single_page=true</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>valuearb</author><text>&amp;quot;For Lamport, a major reason today’s software is so full of bugs is that programmers jump straight into writing code. “Architects draw detailed plans before a brick is laid or a nail is hammered,” he wrote in an article. “But few programmers write even a rough sketch of what their programs will do before they start coding.”&lt;p&gt;I almost always dive in, but I almost always write my code twice. Essentially the first round is my rough sketch, the second is written when I fully understand the problem, which for me only occurs once I&amp;#x27;ve tried to code it.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>KirinDave</author><text>I feel like maybe they simplified Lamport&amp;#x27;s sentiment here, because Lamport&amp;#x27;s on record as pointing out that often times the minimal specification of code is the code itself, and that&amp;#x27;s a very big difference from the architectural world.</text></comment>