Is there a generally accepted definition of the term Wet code? What exactly does it mean? Is it a good thing, or a bad thing?
migrated from stackoverflow.com Jan 21 '12 at 14:11
closed as not constructive by Yannis Rizos♦, Matthieu, Mark Trapp Jan 22 '12 at 21:37
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.
|
It is probably opposite of a dry (don't repeat yourself) code. So it is a bad thing. |
|||||||||||
|
|
"Dripping wet code" -- just written, hopefully compiles, possibly passes a unit test or two. Certainly not used in any real-world situation.
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
I would have a look at this blog post. From what I can understand from this post:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|

Wet code is a phrase I came across recently.is not enough, for Programmers.SE, and the question might be closed soon (don't blame us, blame the SOpedians who migrated here). – Yannis Rizos♦ Jan 21 '12 at 14:19