3

I'm looking for the opposite of "error-prone", specifically in the context of programming style. As in, "Jack has not-error-prone coding style".

Some words that are inappropriate for this context are "infallible", "error-less" and "unfailing". Nobody writes infallible code. "Reliable" hits a little closer to home, but it describes the outcome more than the process. If you have error-prone coding style, it just takes longer to get your program to function reliably.

5
  • You could recast the sentence using adept or proficient--"He is adept at coding." This seems better to me--do people really have "coding styles"? Maybe, but that sounds strange to me.
    – user66965
    May 13 '16 at 23:21
  • There are many ways how one can be "adept" at coding, which makes it a general expression. For example, one might produce clean code, which is easy to read, or one might produce efficient code, which runs fast (or both, which takes more time). I was looking for an expression on the specific thing of "non-error-prone coding style", which sounds silly. And yes, people have "coding styles" :) May 13 '16 at 23:57
  • I assume terms like "high-quality" and "well-written" are not specific enough for your purposes? Also, for what it's worth "coding style" or "programming style" doesn't sound strange to me at all. May 14 '16 at 0:19
  • So why not "error-free"?
    – user66965
    May 14 '16 at 0:52
  • Programming is rife with errors. It's commonplace to spend more time fixing errors from existing code than actually writing new code. I asked this question because I'm tweaking my CV, and I can't describe myself as "writing error-free code", since I don't (and no-one can). I wanted to express the idea that participating in programming competitions has forced me into habits and conventions which reduce the incidence of bugs. May 14 '16 at 1:21
6

Robust seems to be able to indicate good code quality. How about clean and well-structured?

3
  • Robust - able to withstand or overcome adverse conditions. This is a slightly broader term than "non-error-prone", but it's perfect for my context. May 14 '16 at 8:36
  • Yeah, "robust" is the term I'd usually reach for in this context.
    – Hot Licks
    May 14 '16 at 12:08
  • Solid is also ok.
    – Jonas
    May 15 '16 at 15:03
2

I recommend meticulous:

taking or showing extreme care about minute details; precise; thorough

1

Try unerring

Making no errors

Also, optimal

Most effective or best

0

Would concise fit?

Participating in programming competitions has forced me to write concise code.

This captures much of the meaning of your comment.

"I wanted to express the idea that participating in programming competitions has forced me into habits and conventions which reduce the incidence of bugs."

1
  • Writing concise code (as opposed to bloated code) is very important, but it's not directly related to the frequency of errors. There are many cases where a longer solution is clearer and more obviously correct, even though a concise solution would be available. May 14 '16 at 8:46
0

The word you want is adjective: adept:

adjective adept əˈdɛpt: very skilled or proficient at something.
noun adept ˈadɛpt: one who is very skilled or proficient at something.

So, an adept programmer; a programming adept.

5
  • There are many ways how one can be "adept" at coding, which makes it a general expression. For example, one might produce clean code, which is easy to read, or one might produce efficient code, which runs fast. I was looking for an expression on the specific thing of "non-error-prone coding style". May 14 '16 at 11:01
  • If you think that producing clean and efficient code doesn't tend to make it freer of errors, you need to read Ed Yourdon, Larry Constantine, Tom de Marco and Ed Dijkstra, who will express it far better than I can in an answer here.
    – frank
    May 14 '16 at 16:32
  • Of course clean code helps you with bugs. Writing "I'm good at coding" on my CV just doesn't add any value to it. I rather explain how I'm good, and then back those claims with facts. Efficiency and clean code are certainly things all programmers should strive for. On a side note, on hard problems it's far easier to write a bug free inefficient solution than an efficient one. May 14 '16 at 17:21
  • If you write on your CV "My code is error-free" or even "My coding is not error-prone", you will come off as arrogant, not competent. And yes, the usual route is to write code which works and is as clean as possible, and then optimize it. As the saying goes, it's easier to make a working system beautiful than to make beautiful system work.
    – frank
    May 15 '16 at 1:31
  • I agree with everything you said. I only wish you would spend a little time reading before writing. I said in OP and in comments under OP that nobody writes error-free code and it's not the kind of expression I'm looking for. May 15 '16 at 18:07

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.