Impure software engineering generates too much technical debt.

That's a pretty absolutist statement for what the article states is a very broad subject, well beyond code. Can you elaborate what you mean, or whether you have a different definition of impure software engineering?

	▲	mexicocitinluez 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I agree, but not because impure engineering is bad (like OP is suggesting). It's because tech debt is often a result of changing requirements. It's part of the nature of impure software development. Thinking tech debt is a reflection of poor engineering or bad practices is just plain wrong, imo. It's part of the job. There is this fantasy (primarily pushed by the pure devs), that impure/enterprise dev is like following a recipe. The stakeholder gives you the requirements (ingredients, how to cook) and your job is to execute that. And anyone that has spent a non-trivial amount of time in the enterprise world knows this just not how it works. Unlike a video game where there will eventually be an end date, impure devs often have to build solutions that don't have an expiration date. And that's not easy development, trust me.

▲

dasil003 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Impure software engineering funds your paycheck

▲

naasking a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And impure engineers would say that that pure engineering produces too much bankruptcy because you never ship a viable product. ;-)

▲

mexicocitinluez 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

lol.

I mean, of course it does? Requirements change, priorities change, rules/laws change, which all contributes to a constantly moving codebase.

When you're building a video game, do you have to worry about Congress changing healthcare laws? Cmon.