Earlier quoted context omitted.
This person wrote a series of books about clean code which are sometimes recommended to junior programmers. Some people have a high opinion of him. It's a good thing that his claims and experience are being questioned.
I read his books and they're pretty good in showing Junior developers better ways to structure their code. This doesn't mean that Uncle Bob is right on every topic. Safety critical software is completely out of his realm (at least I don't know of any project he worked on that's SC). From my own experience I've seen quite a few safety critical codebases and they're often abhorrent in lack of common sense software stru…
Is Uncle Bob serious?
31–40 of 181 posts
Re: Is Uncle Bob serious?
#32Once again, because I never really get a clear answer for this question: why do we care? How is this not just another instance of "random dude wrong about something"? There are tens of millions of those.
Couldn't the same be said of yours or any other's comments here on HN?
Re: Is Uncle Bob serious?
#33Once again, because I never really get a clear answer for this question: why do we care? How is this not just another instance of "random dude wrong about something"? There are tens of millions of those.
Couldn't the same be said of yours or any other's comments here on HN?
Re: Is Uncle Bob serious?
#34Once again, because I never really get a clear answer for this question: why do we care? How is this not just another instance of "random dude wrong about something"? There are tens of millions of those.
Because he is not random but influential, simple as that.
Re: Is Uncle Bob serious?
#35Both better tools and better software discipline is needed. Better tools could help a lot. It's hard to see how anyone disagrees with that. But, on the flip side, at my most pessimistic, I find that a massive % (say, 50%) of developers struggle to do the most basic things correctly. I can't fathom the types or scope of tools needed to solve the size of the problem (real AI that puts us all out of a job??). So, while…
This is what I don't understand about AI proponents and/or fear mongers. Human level AI writing code? Wouldn't that just be a lot of the same human level bugs? Then people say Super AI will evolve more in a day than we have in a million years. Sure, maybe, it's not known if that's even possible, at this point.
Re: Is Uncle Bob serious?
#36Doesn't appear to be the case here: http://www.safetyresearch.net/blog/articles/toyota-unintende...
Re: Is Uncle Bob serious?
#37Curiously, in the list of possible future tools for more reliability type systems are absent. Looking at the authors bio: "I love solving tough problems with Python and PHP". Type systems to me seem to be (I'm not exaggerating) the answer to all software reliability problems (barring social ones). If you want a property to uphold, formulate it as a type. The compiler verifies. If formulating the type is to laborious,…
That's the thing though, the "social problems" are the important problems.
I think it's a given you should use strong type systems in safety critical software — Haskell, for instance. But look at the quote from Dr Nancy Leveson:
I've been doing this for thirty-six years. I've read hundreds of accident reports and many of them have software in them. And every someone (sic) that software was related, it was a requirements problem. It was not a coding problem. So that's the first really important thing. Everybody's working on coding and testing and they're not working on the requirements, which is the problem.
Lack of strong typing does not seem to be the issue. Lacking domain understanding/logical errors is the problem.
Re: Is Uncle Bob serious?
#38too many programmers think that schedule pressure makes it OK to do a half-assed job
This is solely blaming the programmer . I have been on software projects where someone is basically told deliver what you can by this date and then move onto something else. Then leave someone else to fix the bugs. This despite the programmer working very unsociable hours and trying their absolute hardest. What does Bob want the developer to do ? Refuse and be sacked, when they have a family to feed? Yes there are lots of lazy software developers in our industry who shouldn't be employed, but this kind of generalisation by Uncle Bob isn't helpful.
Better REPLs are not the answer. Model Driven Engineering is not the answer. Tools and platforms are not the answer. Better languages are not the answer
This is just nonsense. They are not the only answer, but of course they are part of the answer.
I stood before a sea of programmers a few days ago. I asked them the question I always ask: “How many of you write unit tests on a regular basis?” Not one in twenty raised their hands.
I would like him to provide evidence of who these people were and if they have any relevance to the article, as the article's jist is about serious and critical software. Are teams delivering such software really not writing automated tests ? I really doubt it.
Automated testing is great. Test Driven Development is a useful technique which I have in my arsenal. But Uncle Bob's obsessive focus on this can cause issues too. I once worked with a developer who had to write everything using TDD and apply EVERYTHING based on Bob's videos. It was too much. APIs weren't designed, data models weren't sensible and there was too much code (methods like isOpen, isNotOpen everywhere). It was clean code taken to the extreme. And not a good extreme.
I am not defending software developers as a whole. The levels of professionalism shown by some in our industry is at times scary. But a silly article like that which Uncle Bob originally wrote isn't helpful.
Re: Is Uncle Bob serious?
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because he is not random but influential, simple as that.
Why is he influential? Because he wrote some books? That's the reason given downthread. Past a fairly low karma threshold, so could any commenter on HN.
Yes - which is something that distinguishes him from most HN commenters.
You started this thread with a question, you got valid answers, and you reply with bogus arguments like this. No wonder you don't understand.
Re: Is Uncle Bob serious?
#40It is my continued theory that Bob Martin is a double agent, whose mission is to discredit TDD in the wider software community by using an infuriating, backlash-inducing writing style.