The original article was about error rate, that's what I was talking about:
1. write some code
2. run the code
3. get an error message
4. find the error and back to step 1
Hour by hour, day after day, I do this. Always searching
for what's wrong with what I'm creating, rarely thinking
about what's good about it. It's a negative reinforcement
feedback loop.
If the error rate was lower, steps 3 and 4 would happen less frequently.
My original point was that #1 doesn't stay static -- if it did, then I'd be writing perfect code right now. Instead the code you write gets harder.
Even then, I don't think the author intended you to take that so literally. That's an easy way to describe the problem to someone who isn't a programmer. The negative feedback loop is much longer and more complicated than that.
