At the next level, we get the lovely phenomenon of CargoCultCodeReviews. That's where, instead of detecting if your code is flexible and maintainable, the reviewer declares you did not construct your bamboo radar antenna to the correct shape. Even if you thought outside the box, and made a radar dish that actually works, there's no response to these kinds of critiques. You cannot use logic to talk someone out of a position they did not use logic to adopt.
[RE: You cannot use logic to talk someone out of a position they did not use logic to adopt. - Excellent point! I'll need to remember this the next time TopMind speaks up.
[TM is that most subtle of chronic trolls - just friendly enough you feel sorry for him, and just knowledgeable enough to always know the most inflammatory response. You can lead him to teach you a lot of good OO theory if you are not careful!
I think one of the more valid points raised against PerlLanguage is that it can encourage this kind of programming. It certainly doesn't have to - in fact the excellent documentation system and the wide range of available modules almost completely remove any real need to resort to this DarkPattern - but the enormous number of features makes it tempting to use code without first checking to see exactly how it works. Witness the recent embarrassing "Year 19100 Problem" caused mostly by Perl programmers failing to read perldoc -f time. --IlmariKaronen
Well, IMHO UNIX portability shenanigans are a much, much worse example of CargoCultProgramming. Witness wait4() woes and not-so-restartable signal handlers, the now-legendary sync; sync; sync... And what about GNU configure using test x$foo = x for checking emptiness of $foo? No shell in existence has bugs with the correct form, test "$foo" = ""! --DominiqueQuatravaux?
(Does this belong in CategoryAntiPattern?) It is similar to CopyAndPasteProgramming.
Similar to VoodooChickenCoding
See also CargoCultSoftwareEngineering, BigAgileUpFront.