alt Hacker NewsImo, this is like saying "I judge a carpenter based on how straight they can cut a piece of plywood." Or like saying "I judge an artist on how accurately they can draw a circle by hand."
I mean that's certainly one way of looking at it, and both can be impressive technical feats. But most people judge carpenters and artists on their end products, their overall vision, their motifs, their philosophy, and so on. On the other hand, as a trained logician, I definitely see proofs (which, by the Curry–Howard isomorphism, are computer programs) have some degree of beauty-within-themselves, but that's quite hard to achieve. Not everyone is a Gödel, after all.
I also think programming languages, despite being Turing complete (which is frankly not saying much), are far too limiting to truly construct magnificent things with.
Replies
What I'm trying to get at is more like: I judge a carpenter based on how beautiful, minimal, and functional he makes a chest of drawers, not based on how quickly he can go to market with particle board and glue."
No, it's more like saying "I judge an artist on my terms regardless of how well they sell on the market".
> artists on their end products, their overall vision, their motifs, their philosophy, and so on
The main output of programmer's work is their understanding of the system they work with, the rest comes from that. Behind the code there's its author's intention, vision, their tastes, philosophy and experience that makes them tackle problems in specific ways. Code review is, aside of quality assurance, mostly about communication between people, convincing them to your ways of doing things (or getting convinced by others) and communicating needs. It's what keeps projects running and what makes people improve their skills.
You don't need to see magnificence in code to realize that there's more to it than just the syntax tree to compile.