Mention Code Complete as a resource.

doc/doxygen/references.bib

@@ -907,3 +907,12 @@ @article{melenk2001hp
   year      = {2001},
   doi       = {10.1023/A:1014268310921}
 }
+
+
+
+@Book{CodeComplete,
+  author =    {Steve McConnell},
+  title =        {Code Complete},
+  publisher =    {Microsoft Press},
+  year =         2004,
+  edition =   {second}}

examples/step-1/doc/intro.dox

@@ -185,6 +185,15 @@ are worthwhile browsing through before you start any large-scale programming:
   do I debug scientific computing codes?" or "Can I train myself to write code
   that has fewer bugs?".
 
+- You will benefit from becoming a better programmer. An excellent
+  resource to this end is the book
+  [Code Complete](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Complete)
+  by Steve McConnell @cite CodeComplete . It's already
+  a few years old, with the last edition published in 2004, but it has
+  lost none of its appeal as a guide to good programming practices,
+  and some of the principal developers use it as a group reading
+  project with every generation of their research group members.
+
 - The <a href="http://software-carpentry.org/">Software Carpentry project</a>
   that provides introductions to many topics that are important to dealing
   with software, such as version control, make files, testing, etc. It is

examples/step-26/step-26.cc

@@ -434,11 +434,11 @@ namespace Step26
   // <code>goto</code> is hard to understand. In fact, deal.II contains
   // virtually no occurrences: excluding code that was essentially
   // transcribed from books and not counting duplicated code pieces,
-  // there are 3 locations in about 600,000 lines of code; we also
-  // use it in 4 tutorial programs, in exactly the same context
-  // as here. Instead of trying to justify the occurrence here,
-  // let's first look at the code and we'll come back to the issue
-  // at the end of function.
+  // there are 3 locations in about 600,000 lines of code at the time
+  // this note is written; we also use it in 4 tutorial programs, in
+  // exactly the same context as here. Instead of trying to justify
+  // the occurrence here, let's first look at the code and we'll come
+  // back to the issue at the end of function.
   template <int dim>
   void HeatEquation<dim>::run()
   {
@@ -644,10 +644,14 @@ namespace Step26
 // to read or understand than a <code>goto</code>.
 //
 // In the end, one might simply agree that <i>in general</i>
-// <code>goto</code> statements are a bad idea but be pragmatic
-// and state that there may be occasions where they can help avoid
-// code duplication and awkward control flow. This may be one of these
-// places.
+// <code>goto</code> statements are a bad idea but be pragmatic and
+// state that there may be occasions where they can help avoid code
+// duplication and awkward control flow. This may be one of these
+// places, and it matches the position Steve McConnell takes in his
+// excellent book "Code Complete" @cite CodeComplete about good
+// programming practices (see the mention of this book in the
+// introduction of step-1) that spends a surprising ten pages on the
+// question of <code>goto</code> in general.
 
 
 // @sect3{The <code>main</code> function}