Refactoring is something that should be constantly done in a code base, for every story. As soon as people get scared about changing things the codebase is on the road to being legacy.
Been with a lot of codebases that had no unit tests at all and everyone was afraid to change anything because the QA process could take weeks to months.
The result is you have a codebase that ages like milk.
Only if the code base is well tested.
Edit: always add tests when you change code that doesn’t have tests.
And also try to make tests that don’t have to change if you refactor in future (although there are some exceptions)
Doesn’t everybody agree with this? I really never thought of it as a hot take.
I highly doubt most corps do
Corps != people.
People just pass the buck and nobody stands up for what is most correct
Standing up at the wrong time is how you end up on the list to get laid off. Most calls I have at work are like group therapy sessions, as everyone has ideas of what they believe is correct, but they know if they keep pressing with management or take the time to do what is right, it won’t go well for them.
A good manager likes to be told they’re wrong and how things should be done, but those are few and far between.
Most calls I have at work are like group therapy sessions, as everyone has ideas of what they believe is correct, but they know if they keep pressing with management or take the time to do what is right, it won’t go well for them.
This is coming from a guy who lasted a year and a half in the office. Sounds like it’s a systematic issue…
It is. I’ve lasted almost 18 years. Things come in waves of good and bad. We’re currently in some bad times.
This
deleted by creator
Today I removed code from a codebase that was added in 2021 and never ever used. Sadly, some people are as content to litter in their repo as they are in the woods.
Our company motto is: “leave it cleaner than you found it”
Who is in the wrong? Your manager, for not giving you time to refactor? Or you for giving him the option?
Why do you need time to refactor? It is just part of the work you need to do and should be accounted for when doing any other work. IMO a big mistake people make is thinking refactoring is some separate thing they need permission to do. You don’t, if you need to make a change in some area refactor it first to make it easier to accept your change, then add your change then refactor to clean up. This is not three separate tasks, just three steps in one task. You should be given enough time to do the whole task, not just part of it.
I guess I need to refactor for readability. What you just explained is the entire point of the comment I posted. Refactoring is part of the job. Don’t give your manager a choice on whether or not it needs done.
Yes please. Many times when I add a feature I end up refactoring some of the code first to better accommodate it.
We used to call this ‘Code is Cheap’ at my last job - you’re spot on about the value of it
thank_you_michael_scott.gif
Until you know a few very different languages, you don’t know what a good language is, so just relax on having opinions about which languages are better. You don’t need those opinions. They just get in your way.
Don’t even worry about what your first language is. The CS snobs used to say BASIC causes brain damage and that us '80s microcomputer kids were permanently ruined … but that was wrong. JavaScript is fine, C# is fine … as long as you don’t stop there.
(One of my first programming languages after BASIC was ZZT-OOP, the scripting language for Tim Sweeney’s first published game, back when Epic Games was called Potomac Computer Systems. It doesn’t have numbers. If you want to count something, you can move objects around on the game board to count it. If ZZT-OOP doesn’t cause brain damage, no language will.)
Please don’t say the new language you’re being asked to learn is “unintuitive”. That’s just a rude word for “not yet familiar to me”. So what if the first language you used required curly braces, and the next one you learn doesn’t? So what if type inference means that you don’t have to write
inton your ints? You’ll get used to it.You learned how to use curly braces, and you’ll learn how to use something else too. You’re smart. You can cope with indentation rules or significant capitalization or funny punctuation. The idea that some features are “unintuitive” rather than merely temporarily unfamiliar is just getting in your way.
Please don’t say the new language you’re being asked to learn is “unintuitive”. That’s just a rude word for “not yet familiar to me”…The idea that some features are “unintuitive” rather than merely temporarily unfamiliar is just getting in your way.
Well i mean… that’s kinda what “unintuitive” means. Intuitive, i.e. natural/obvious/without effort. Having to gain familiarity sorta literally means it’s not that, thus unintuitive.
I dont disagree with your sentiment, but these people are using the correct term. For example, python len(object) instead of obj.len() trips me up to this day because 99% of the time i think [thing] -> [action], and most language constructs encourage that. If I still regularly type an object name, and then have to scroll the cursor back over and type “len(”, i cant possibly be using my intuition. It’s not the language’s “fault” - because it’s not really “wrong” - but it is unintuitive.
If you only know C and you’re looking at Python, the absence of curly braces on code blocks is temporarily unfamiliar to you.
But if you only know Python and you’re looking at C, the fact that indentation doesn’t matter is temporarily unfamiliar to you.
Once you learn the new language, it’s not unfamiliar to you anymore.
“Unintuitive” often suggests that there’s something wrong with the language in a global sense, just because it doesn’t look like the last one you used — as if the choice to use (or not use) curly braces is natural and anything else is willfully perverse on the part of the language designer.
“Unintuitive” often suggests that there’s something wrong with the language in a global sense
I mean only if you consider “Intuition” to be some monolithic, static thing that’s also identical for everyone. Everyone has their own intuition, and their intuition changes over time. Intuition is akin to an opinion - it’s built up based on your own past experiences.
just because it doesn’t look like the last one you used — as if the choice to use (or not use) curly braces is natural and anything else is willfully perverse on the part of the language designer.
I don’t think it’s that deep. All people mean when they say it is that “[thing] defied my expectation/prior experience”. It’s like saying “sea food tastes bad”. There’s an implicit “to me” at the end, it’s obvious i’m not saying “sea food factually tastes bad, and anyone who says they like it is wrong or lying”.
No programming language is “natural/obvious/without effort”.
You could say that about anything. Of course you have to learn something the first time and it’s “unintuitive” then. Intuition is literally an expectation based on prior experience.
Intuitive patterns exist in programming languages. For example, most conditionals are denoted with “if”, “else”, and “while”. You would find it intuitive if a new programming language adhered to that. You’d find it unintuitive if the conditionals were denoted with “dnwwkcoeo”, “wowpekg cneo”, and “coebemal”.
Languages also have inner consistency. E.g. the mentioned python len function is inconsistent with the rest of the same language - and that is a statement that is true in itself, without an external reference point.
Yes, I agree that the
len()thing in Python, and inconsistency in general, is bad. But pretty much all popular languages have many inconsistencies.
But there are languages that require varying degrees of effort to become natural. Something like Malbolge will pretty much never be natural while something like Python can become natural to you in a few days.
Yeah. The original comment was about programmers who say that a language is “unintuitive” because it doesn’t look like another language they know.
Idk, I don’t see a problem with saying a new language is unintuitive. For example, in js I still consider the horrible type coercion and the “fix” with the triple-equals very unintuitive indeed. On the flip side, when learning C# I found the multiple ways of making comparisons to be pretty intuitive, and not footguns.
Please don’t say the new language you’re being asked to learn is “unintuitive”. That’s just a rude word for “not yet familiar to me”.
Yeah. I’ve written in six or so different languages and am using Go now for the first time. Even then, I’m trying to be optimistic and acknowledge things are just different or annoying for me. It doesn’t mean anything is wrong with the language.
ZZT-OOP is fun to work with though, definitely not meant for doing anything more complex than light gameplay, and yet people have done ridiculous things with it.
Though I personally did most of my coding in that vein in MegaZeux with their Robotic language, which is basically ZZT-OOP++.
I still think ruby is a bad language, even though I agree with you
I found ruby horribly confusing until I got over the intial learning bump.
Now I love it. It really is lovely. In terms of design that is. Not sure about the monkeypatching
I really don’t like how rails brings things into scope and you just have no idea what’s there or how it got there unless you know all of the conventions. I guess that’s a rails issue and not ruby though.
I learned in python and C++ so I’m biased towards things that are extremely specific. Definitely doesn’t mean ruby is necessarily bad, I just don’t like it.
I’m one of those weirdoes who likes ruby and has never used rails, so no opinion there.
Until you know a few very different languages, you don’t know what a good language is, so just relax on having opinions about which languages are better. You don’t need those opinions. They just get in your way.
This is wise advice for ANY domain of knowledge.
Lotta people get a little fragment of knowledge on something, then shut down their brain and stop accepting new input. But life is change, and to be able to change and learn new things you need to keep your mind open. Being able to relax on having opinions and keep learning and moving along is very important.
This is very true! Languages being unintuitive also becomes less of an issue the more languages you look into. There will be many concepts that multiple languages have since ultimately they are all trying to do similar things and the more you learn the more you will recognize making it easier to get into even more languages.
Dynamic typing is insane. You have to keep track of the type of absolutely everything, in your head. It’s like the assembly of type systems, except it makes your program slower instead of faster.
If you don’t add comments, even rudimentary ones, or you don’t use a naming convention that accurately describes the variables or the functions, you’re a bad programmer. It doesn’t matter if you know what it does now, just wait until you need to know what it does in 6 months and you have to stop what you’re doing an decipher it.
Programing is a lot less important than people and team dynamics
My take is that no matter which language you are using, and no matter the field you work in, you will always have something to learn.
After 4 years of professional development, I rated my knowledge of C++ at 7/10. After 8 years, I rated it 4/10. After 15 years, I can confidently say 6.5/10.
Tools that use a GUI are just as good (if not better) than their CLI equivalents in most cases. There’s a certain kind of dev that just gets a superiority complex about using CLI stuff.
The big thing you can do from the command line is script it.
My file explorer has a GUI and is scriptable ;)
Which means a person doesn’t need to become that good with the command line, they just need to learn the commands long enough to write the script and then never think about those commands again.
I’ve written a lot of scripts, but if someone asked me to do what the script does at the CLI with no man pages or anything, nope. Can’t do it, and I think that’s probably a good thing.
Indeed, the problem with gui apps is when you can’t script them!
I always loved alfred on osx, then loved scripting rofi on linux, only to come back to osx years later and find alfred can’t be invoked with stdin options. It’s damn shame….
I used to think something like this when I was younger. I spent an inordinate amount of time looking for good gui versions of cli tools. I have come to understand that this is not usually the case and cli tools are more convenient much of the time. I would not classify this as superiority complex, unless I’m being a jerk about it. I don’t care what you use, I just use whatever has the lowest barrier to entry with the most standardization, which is usually the original cli tool.
That said, jetbrains git integration is awesome.
I’d argue the GUI has the lowest barrier to entry as it eliminates the need to learn any syntax or look up which switches to use.
If someone use a particular CLI tool often it can be quick and easy to do something, but for the occasional use, a GUI is much easier, assuming it has the required features a person needs. Can I use sed to replace a bunch of text in a file, sure, but it’s probably be faster and easier to use a text editor since I’m not using sed everyday.
It also depends on the specifics — in many cases when a GUI is just a wrapper over the CLI tool, it is instructive to learn the CLI, similarly how you are a better programmer if you know about at least a layer beneath the one you are programming at (e.g. you can reason about this usage of hashmap because you roughly know what it does).
It is probably the most visible in git, but if you can only do commit and push from a GUI, just please learn the CLI as well. You don’t have to use it, but understanding it is important and the GUI may abstract away too much from you.
I agree, for a power user there is some value there.
I’ve used the git CLI, but find it a bit tedious. I also find a lot of value in the GUI providing an easy diff reference before a commit, at least in the app I use most of the time. There are some things the GUI can’t do, or it’s too weird to do, so the CLI is still handy.
I agree only when your job function is specifically geared around those tools… Otherwise high quality guis are more valuable.
Just because I can do everything in gdb that I can do in visual studio doesn’t mean 99% of most debugging tasks isn’t easier and faster in visual studio. Now if my job was specifically aimed at debugging/reverse engineering there are certain things that gdb does better on the CLI… But for most software devs… CLI gdb isn’t valuable.
There are some massive intrinsic advantages of the CLI though, that apply for everyone, not just leetcoders:
- The terminal can remember everything you ever did. Forgotten the command you wrote 2 months ago? You can do a search for it with a tool like
fzfand run the exact same command again. - Communicating with others. GUI programs require step by step instructions, often accompanied by screenshots while CLI may be copy/pasted.
- Combining programs together. There are a few different techniques for combining CLI programs to search/format output, use secrets without ever having them in the clipboard or on disk, monitor something frequently/constantly etc etc
So while I agree with you that there’s plently of elitism around the CLI, you do yourself a disservice if you try to avoid it.
- The terminal can remember everything you ever did. Forgotten the command you wrote 2 months ago? You can do a search for it with a tool like
My gold standard app is a CLI where I have the option to visually add the flags. I’m thinking of the ytdlp-gui type programs.
Which yt-dlp GUI do you use?
On windows I was using youtube-dl-wpf
That’s the gold standard as far as I’m concerned. Haven’t used the ytdlp-gui yet, but it’s simple stupid… I might want a few more switches (more exactly the extract audio/subtitles) to turn
Just no. CLI can be automated, which makes it superior. It’s not a superiority complex, it’s a fact. I’m not a minimal wage worker pushing buttons I don’t understand. I’m not a technician who learnt your shitty software to do the most basic tasks.
Aside from automation, CLI can support significantly more complicated apps reliably. It can also be tested more reliably.
GUIs are better for anything simple, and good UX designers can make a moderately complex one, but anything like server administration/git/configs are 100x better on CLI
This depends a lot on the GUI and the tool. Some cli tools are great alone or for scripting, others benefit from the extra attention to ux and exposure of options that a GUI can offer
For git in particular, I encourage juniors to learn and use the CLI. I find that GUI git clients often do some or all of the following:
-
Use non-git terminology that ends up being confusing. “Sync” comes to mind as a frequent offender, I can think of several incompatible things that could refer to.
-
Ignore the useful ability to stage your changes
-
Don’t permit or encourage a review of the changes
-
Implement only the basics and make remediation of branching issues difficult
In the worst case, I’ve seen people end up using the git GUI like a “save” button, blindly commiting and pushing the current state of their code, including to-be-removed print statements and other cruft. Yeah, git cli is a bit complex compared to that, but you gain a lot for that added complexity.
That said, I’ve definitely jumped into a git GUI from time to time just for a visualization of whenever branching snafu I’m trying to untangle. None of the above invalidates GUIs if you take care to still understand the underlying tool properly!
-
I don’t know, a tool we use at my work has a git GUI integrated, and it breaks all the time, lol.
Not sure if these are hot takes:
- Difficult to test == poorly designed
- Code review is overrated and often poorly executed, most things should be checked automatically (review should still be done though)
- Which programming language doesn’t matter (within reason), while amount of programming languages matters a lot
I agree with your first point, but pretty strongly disagree with the other two. Code review is critical. Devs should be discussing changes and design choices. One Dev can not be all things all the time and other people have experience you do not or can remind you of things you forgot. Programming language absolutely matters when you’re not the only dev on the team.
If code reviews in your org are glorified “styleguide checks”, then they are not really code reviews at all.
Also, if you’re only getting design input at code review time, that’s WWAAYY too late in the process.
Code reviews should be:
-
Establishing that the code has proper test coverage (functional correctness VIA coverage, not code observation)
-
Establishing that it doesn’t have unintended consequences in the ** implementation** (making db calls in a loop, exposing secure information, etc)
-
That the implementation is of the high-level design that was already established and agreed upon by the larger development unit.
-
A opportunity to ask questions to learn from whoever wrote the code
-
An opportunity for the reviewers to teach techniques that could have helped in the code
You missed one:
- To let others at least have some insight into what you’re doing so you can take a freakin’ vacation every once in a while
-
Nice, so they are hot takes :D
If the design of a code change is bad, noticing that in the PR stage is not desirable. It should be discussed before someone actually went ahead and implemented it. It can also happen if people misunderstand the architecture, but again, that should be cleared up before actually implementing a change. Code style should be enforced automatically, as should test coverage and performance. Code review is also pretty bad at finding bugs from my experience. That imo leaves very few things where code review is useful that are not nitpicking.
As for programming languages, the amount does matter for individuals and for teams/organisations. A developer who can only use a single language is not very good, and using a many different languages within the same team is not good either.
Code review is overrated and often poorly executed, most things should be checked automatically (review should still be done though)
I think part of this is caused by the fact that a lot of people are bad at code reviews so they focus on things that a linter could have told you. Being able to read code isn’t necessarily the same skill as being able to write it – as evidenced by the knee jerk reaction to throw out any coffee we didn’t write ourselves.
I still create code reviews when I’m working on a project alone because it gives me a different perspective on the changes I’ve made.
It’s not that most people are bad at it, they are just out of context.
Like, I am completely swamped with a completely different business area of the code, besides checking for obviously dumb things, what can I really tell about a diff to a very separate part of the code which I may have never worked on before, with business requirements I don’t understand as I was not part of the 10 meetings that happened between the dev of the given ticket and BAs?
Difficult to test == poorly designed
It’s pretty much a natural law that GUIs are hard to thoroughly test.
But does it have to be? I haven’t touched non-web GUIs since 15 years, so my perspective on this is limited. And web frontend is not what I would call a well designed system for it’s current purpose.
Imo reviews are more for checking that someone didn’t drop malware into the code base. It’s rare that I get a good review that goes beyond checking for malice.
I’ve been wanting to make my applications easier to test. The issue is, I don’t know what to test. Often my issues are so trivial I notice them immediately.
What are some examples of common things in, let’s say a web server, that could be unit tested?
Good questions, I could probably write a lot, but I’ll try to keep it short. I usually apply TDD and there are different schools of thought within it about how to structure the development process. But no matter how exactly you do it, if you focus on writing the tests while writing your code, you won’t end up with an application that you then have to figure out how to test.
what to test
Well, what is the application supposed do? That is what you test, the behaviour of the application.
So in a codebase without any tests, the first thing you should write a test for is the happy path. That will probably not be a unit test. So for the web server example, set it up in a test with a file, start it and check if it serves that file.
Then you can add tests for all the error cases and for additional functionality. You can write unit tests for individual components. The ideal places to test are interfaces with clear boundaries. Ideally you should not have to look at the code of a method to be able to write a test for it. In reality that’s not always so easy, especially in existing code bases, but if you have to set up more than one mock, it tends to lead to brittle tests.
Every time you encounter a bug/issue, reproduce it in a test first. And do measure code coverage, but don’t make it a target, just check for places that are lacking.
Python is only good for short programs
Most modern software is way too complex for what it actually does.
SPAs are mostly garbage, and the internet has been irreparably damaged by lazy devs chasing trends just to building simple sites with overly complicated fe frameworks.
90% of the internet actually should just be rendered server side with a bit of js for interactivity. JQuery was fine at the time, Javascript is better now and Alpinejs is actually awesome. Nowadays, REST w/HTMX and HATEOAS is the most productive, painless and enjoyable web development can get. Minimal dependencies, tiny file sizes, fast and simple.
Unless your web site needs to work offline (it probably doesn’t), or it has to manage client state for dozen/hundreds of data points (e.g. Google Maps), you don’t need a SPA. If your site only needs to track minimal state, just use a good SSR web framework (Rails, asp.net, Django, whatever).
The best codebase I have ever seen and collaborated on was also boring as fuck.
- Small, immutable modules.
- Every new features was coded by extension (the ‘o’ in S.O.L.I.D)
- All dependencies were resolved by injection.
- All the application life cycle was managed by configurable scopes.
- There was absolutely no boiler plate except for the initial injectors.
- All of the tests were brain-dead and took very minimal effort to write. Tests served both as documentation and specification for modules.
- “Refactoring” was as simple as changing a constructor or a configuration file.
- All the input/output of the modules were configurable streams.
There is more to it, but basically, it was a very strict codebase, and it used a lot of opinionated libraries. Not an easy codebase to understand if you’re a newbie, but it was absolutely brain dead to maintain and extend on.
Coding actually took very little time of our day, most of it consisted of researching the best tech or what to add next. I think the codebase was objectively strictly better than all other similar software I’ve seen and worked on. We joked A LOT when it came time to change something in the app pretending it would take weeks and many 8 pointers, then we’d casually make the change while joking about it.
It might sound mythical and bullshity, and it wasn’t perfect, it should be said that dependency injection often come in the form of highly opinionated frameworks, but it really felt like what software development should be. It really felt like engineering, boring and predictable, every PO dreams.
That being said, I given up trying to convince people that having life-cycle logic are over the place and fetching dependencies left and right always lead to chaos. Unfortunately I cannot really tell you guys what the software was about because I am not allowed to, but there was a lot of moving parts (hence why we decided to go with this approach). I will also reiterate that it was boring as fuck. If anything, my hot take would be that most programmers are subconsciously lying to themselves, and prefer to code whatever it is they like, instead of what the codebase need, and using whatever tool they like, instead of the tools the project and the team need. Programming like and engineer is not “fun”, programming like a cowboy and ignoring the tests is a whole lot of fun.
You can always solve a problem by adding more layers of abstraction. Good software design isn’t to add more layers of abstractions, it’s to solve problems with the minimum amount of abstractions necessary while still having maintainable, scalable code.
There are benefits to abstraction but they also have downsides. They can complicate code and make code harder to read.
Compiler checked typing is strictly superior to dynamic typing. Any criticism of it is either ignorance, only applicable to older languages or a temporarily missing feature from the current languages.
Using dynamic languages is understandable for a lot of language “external” reasons, just that I really feel like there’s no good argument for it.
Internet would be better if javascript was never invented.
