In short: Something that implement(fullfil) user requirements
I would say no, absolutely not on a strategical point of view. Your answer would be very true for an architect who may drift easily from this main purpose, but the developper does this by nature under team leader's supervision so it is not something remarkable.
I would absolutely say in the scope of an interview : "good code is code easy to maintain and refactorize, and well commented".
CNAM IT Engineer, MS/CS (RHCE, RHCX, SCJA, SCJP, SCJD, SCWCD, SCBCD, SCEA, Net+)
Free Online Tutorials: http://www.free-tutorials-online.net/
I would expect the organisation's coding standards to be adhered to. If these don't exist, then some recognised standards must be followed.
I reviewed some code (written by an outsource company but I'm sure that it happens with inhouse code as well) which had package names like ABCD_UC (ABCD being the name of the application). I soon got that corrected ..
My standard of good is short, clean, efficient (usually a natural side effect of the first two) and commented well enough that you don't have to tie your mind in knots trying to figure out A) what it's supposed to be doing and B) how it's doing it.
Note that good code != good program. A program can be full of absolutely beautiful code and not do what the users want/need. Conversely, most of the systems I know of that have been truly popular are full of really ugly programming.
Djikstra wrote a short book on what was excellence and beauty in code. Can't remember the title offhand.
Bjoke: A "Bully Joke". A Statement or action made with malicious intent - unless challenged. At which point it magically transforms into "I was just funnin'" or "What's the matter, can't take a joke?"
You showed up just in time for the waffles! And this tiny ad:
Building a Better World in your Backyard by Paul Wheaton and Shawn Klassen-Koop