41–50 of 130 posts
I wonder if this attitude will change once things like coq become more accessible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like most consumer apps incur a crazy amount of technical debt while largely paying people in equity, then if they take off raise a bunch of money to pay other people in cash to sort it all out... Pretty good system actually.
Enterprise apps are no different. Lean startup is doing better in the enterprise than it is in the "startup" world. Early on, every app is laden with technical debt. They barely work. When "barely works" becomes "doesn't work", we fix them just enough so they barely work again, and start piling on more features and functionality. We may build some scaffolding and do some refactoring to prevent dropping into doesn't-w…
If you care about the outcome of a craft, you'll get craftsmen, and they'll produce things and you'll pick the best ones.
Imagine if a chef had to serve the first try at a new dish, if a photographer had to use his first shot, if a director had to use the first take, if a visual designer had to use the first concept. These processes are easier for people to understand because a layman can tell if two flavors didn't combine well, if a model blinked, or if something looks off. People (even technical ones) can't experience technical problems immediately or directly in the same way. Other fields solve for this with engineering, but ours rarely is allowed.
We often ship the first architecture that gets brainstormed, and the first implementation that works. It's never "We implemented the MVP using patterns/frameworks A, B, C, D, here's a table of the strengths and weaknesses as we see them, statistical summary of the time to complete each feature, and of defect rates. This next slide is a plot of the relationship between request latency, capacity, and estimated infrastructure cost of each implementation". It's rare to even have refactors scheduled. Just cleaning up your shit is "wasting time", never mind how long it takes to ship new features given how cluttered things are.
Sure, engineering is costly, so is not engineering - you just aren't projecting or measuring the latter costs. It's all trade-offs, if you aren't considering expected values of different options, with numbers, then you haven't optimized, you just rolled some dice. Sure, of course it's always worked, everything always have worked for the survivors. There's a big difference between what's unforeseeable and what has merely been left unforeseen.
I see things a bit differently. Some domains are well understood and it's relatively easy to write perfect code (e.g. mathematical functions, list manipulating functions, etc.), while in others it may be much harder (the file uploading example he mentions). To me a good aim of writing code is to move bits and pieces from the latter camp to the former, so that more and more of your codebase is well understood (and per…
I get really twitchy when I read statements like yours. But I am completely unreasonable in my definition of perfect -- it is really beyond extreme. Perfect is an absolute, so by definition it is unobtainable. Perfect means you have gone beyond the notion of executes correctly every single time, but MUST also be aesthetically perfect. Perfect names, perfect formatting, perfect location etc. No one can meet my criteri…
Some code is perfect, but it's only perfect because it was define with extreme mathematical precision (Ex: Haskell Prelude code). The value of this type of code is in direct proportioned to how often it's reused. Often the specs are based on timeless and well defined ideas, and the implementation crystallizes.
On the other end of the spectrum is loosely defined ad hoc code. The specification behaves more like a living thing and the code often tries to adapt to the moving specification over time. This type of code tends to bring a lot of value to the business and often relies on the foundations laid by perfectionist code.
One of the depressing things about code is that it is astoundingly easy to build something that does amazing things in controlled circumstances but is otherwise practically garbage. Promotions, venture capital, and all other manner of rewards can result from said garbage. The “real work” is in figuring out how to move forward from something like that, and lots of stress comes from trying to do so without breaking any…
But, as you've pointed out, the real work is in maintenance, durability, and quality, not veneers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get really twitchy when I read statements like yours. But I am completely unreasonable in my definition of perfect -- it is really beyond extreme. Perfect is an absolute, so by definition it is unobtainable. Perfect means you have gone beyond the notion of executes correctly every single time, but MUST also be aesthetically perfect. Perfect names, perfect formatting, perfect location etc. No one can meet my criteri…
Why have the word perfect then?
I see things a bit differently. Some domains are well understood and it's relatively easy to write perfect code (e.g. mathematical functions, list manipulating functions, etc.), while in others it may be much harder (the file uploading example he mentions). To me a good aim of writing code is to move bits and pieces from the latter camp to the former, so that more and more of your codebase is well understood (and per…
Actually, I'd say writing perfect code in the mathematical domain is extremely hard - floating point types are a minefield and infinite-precision arithmetic is a minefield also if you consider the possibilities for running-times exploding. For example, code for the mean of a list of numbers is a hard problem when looked at in its full generality [1] - and that's using forgiving definition of "perfect" - alway correct…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get really twitchy when I read statements like yours. But I am completely unreasonable in my definition of perfect -- it is really beyond extreme. Perfect is an absolute, so by definition it is unobtainable. Perfect means you have gone beyond the notion of executes correctly every single time, but MUST also be aesthetically perfect. Perfect names, perfect formatting, perfect location etc. No one can meet my criteri…
Why have the word perfect then?
It's important to know what kind of code you're working on before you start setting low standards. Some code is perfect, but it's only perfect because it was define with extreme mathematical precision (Ex: Haskell Prelude code). The value of this type of code is in direct proportioned to how often it's reused. Often the specs are based on timeless and well defined ideas, and the implementation crystallizes. On the ot…