What is it about code formatting standards? After all, the important thing is that the code compiles, links and passes its tests, right?
No. All psychological and behavioral arguments aside, there is something attractive about well-formatted code. Admittedly, well-formatted code does not guarantee functional correctness, adequate performance and maintainability, but it is clear (at least to me and the folks that I prefer to work with) that it helps readability and therefore maintainability. And it certainly makes a better first impression than a slap-dash bunch of statements thrown together.
What does this have to do with costumers and handshakes?
My wife likes to sew costumes for my daughter, who is deeply involved with the San Francisco Dickens Faire and other such semi-historical pastimes. At one of the Dickens Faires my wife approached a woman and asked her about her costume. This is not an uncommon occurrence at these events, and most people are only too happy to talk about their work. After chatting for a few minutes and establishing a rapport, my wife reached out, looked closer at the garment, and turned the edge of the woman's bodice to examine the stitching and the lining. The woman chuckled and said, "Ah, the costumer's handshake!" and we both immediately knew what she meant.
People who care about the quality of their (and other's) work know to look inside and underneath. Costumers know the handshake. Woodworkers know to open the drawers of a cabinet to check out craftsmanship of the joints inside. They look to see if something is veneer (likely to come off in time), or solid wood, which will last longer. Printers know to hold up a page of a book to the light to check that the imposition of back-to-back pages is in alignment, and to check the quality of the paper.
I don't know if such quick evaluations can help judge the quality of a body of code. There are obvious things to look for such as error handling and formatting consistency, but problems such as duplicated code and bad naming are harder to spot without spending more time getting to know the code.
I haven't worked with many open source projects, but the one I've spent the most time with (Blender - see www.blender.org) certainly doesn't pass a lot of my tests. Does that mean it's not successful? If open-source success is defined as "usage and visibility" then Blender certainly qualifies as a success. A lot of the commercial closed-source code I work with doesn't pass my tests either. Given that success for commercial closed-source is defined as profitability for the company that produces it, I can't comment on that in public.
I do know, however, that (by the craftsmanship standard), much of the code that I work with might not stand up to having its "lining" examined. But that is one of the goals I aim for.
