R71: Can't re-use code that you've written before?

[Rick Thornbro]

Let's remember spirit of the rule. Let's use this time to teach new programmers the art of taking a hunk of metal and making it come alive. Taking code from a previous year and dumping it, is fast but doesn't teach anything.

[Ryan M.]

Originally Posted by Rick Thornbro

Let's remember spirit of the rule. Let's use this time to teach new programmers the art of taking a hunk of metal and making it come alive. Taking code from a previous year and dumping it, is fast but doesn't teach anything.

True... although you do learn code reuse and the advantages of good, modular design. *shrug* Just another view.

[Rick TYler]

Our software team lead was the apprentice software guy last year. Some of the interpretations above would lead me to believe that he would have to forget some of the clever algorithms he learned last year, otherwise he would write them exactly the same way again this year. Once you've figured out an algorithm and code structure that works, it's still the same even if you have to type it in from memory. If the rule was in support of learning programming from scratch, it would make more sense just to prohibit anyone who knew C programming before the kick-off from working on the code. Personally, I don't know how to unlearn something on purpose.

I going with "the rule doesn't make sense to me." Amongst dozens of clear (and far-thinking) rules, a small gray cloud has crept in. I don't find the explanations above satisfying, either. I guess I'll post this on the FIRST Q&A if someone hasn't beaten me to it.

[Dave Flowerday]

Originally Posted by Rick Thornbro

Let's remember spirit of the rule. Let's use this time to teach new programmers the art of taking a hunk of metal and making it come alive. Taking code from a previous year and dumping it, is fast but doesn't teach anything.

FIRST has stated time and again that the program is not about teaching (they always refer to the I and R in FIRST), so I doubt this rule is intended to force teams to start over in order to teach their new programming people.

Besides, I've always thought that one of the best engineering practices is to build on what others have done.

We've discussed this for a few days now and I still am not entirely clear on the purpose of this rule. The rule equates software code to a mechanical part that's been produced - but why draw the line between software architecture and software coding? My mechanical friends can have a complex 3D part designed in AutoCAD ahead of the season and just press the big green button on the CNC machine to have it produced after kickoff. So why as a software person can't I just run my compiler on code I've already written to produce a compiled executable (which I argue is a better analogy to a machined part)?