241–250 of 294 posts
- The tooling is excellent.
- The code is well-documented and readable.
- The core team committed to never needing to introduce breaking changes.
The Elixir community tends to produce work that is actually considered "Done". An elixir package is not stale when it hasn't seen a commit in a few months. Instead, the feeling is: "It's feature complete and only needs maintenance from here on out."
I think musl libc [1] has good quality code. If anything their build system is great. It makes the code much easier to navigate. [1] https://www.musl-libc.org
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh boy, I would give your comment an infinite number of up-votes. Yes, testing has reached fetish-like levels. Some of the test code I've encountered recently has been more voluminous, complex and has taken more man hours to develop and maintain than the application or library it's assigned to. For the love of God, develop the damned software! It's either going to work or it's not.
> has taken more man hours to develop and maintain than the application But that is perfectly normal when developing quality code. There is no rule that says that test code development should take LESS time. Certainly different applications have different quality requirements. Perhaps the software you are developing doesn't have that high requirements?
I just don't have a high tolerance for needless complexity and gee-whiz-look-what-I-can-do while the clock is running.
Strictly talking about code quality, I will nominate RCP100, which is a small, virtually unknown, now-abandoned routing software written in C [0]. I started programming with C way back in the 90s, and this is one of only two projects I can recall being immediately struck by the beauty of the code (Redis being the other). I know almost nothing about the author but he seems not to want to be known by name. You can brow…
Thanks for uploading RCP100. Your comment is a timely one. I wanted to learn how a router works and is built and was looking for a simpler implementation.
Can you recommend any resources from which I could learn more about network programming, so that I could understand RCP100 code better?
Thanks!
Also big fan of Sidekiq for similar reasons.
I hold the source code of Go standard library & base distribution (i.e. compiler, etc.) in very high regard. Especially the standard library is, in my opinion, stunningly easy to read, explore and understand, while at the same time being well thought through, easy to use (great and astonishingly well documented APIs), of very good performance, and with huge amounts of (also well readable!) tests. The compiler (includ…
This is one of the great things about many Go libraries; the language is so simple its difficult to overcomplicate a Go project. This makes reading any Go source code, projects, libraries, the stdlib, a joy. The only times I've found Go libraries to be a PITA to read is when they get autogenerated from some other language (protobuf compilations, parts of the compiler that came from C, AWS/GoogleCloud/Azure libraries,…
[1]: https://medium.com/@arschles/go-experience-report-generics-i...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SQlite is very high quality software, but they use DO-178b "inspired" testing process. As far as I know they don't have version of software that is or can be used in safety critical parts despite their boasting. They say in their site that: > Airbus confirms that SQLite is being used in the flight software for the A350 XWB family of aircraft. Flight software does not imply safety critical parts of avionics. It can be…
Correct. The key word is "inspired". Multiple companies have run a DO-178B cert on SQLite, I am told, but the core developers did not get to participate, and I think the result was level-C or -D. While all that was happening 10+ years ago, I learned about DO-178B. I have a copy of the DO-178B spec within arms reach. And I found that, unlike most other "quality" standards I have encountered, DO-178B is actually useful…