Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Write code that is easy to delete, not easy to extend (2016)

programmingisterrible.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 102 posts

Re: Write code that is easy to delete, not easy to extend (2016)

#21

Post by z3t4 »

zokier wrote: post #18
jumploops wrote: post #12

My favorite saying: “simple is robust” Similar in spirit to Lehman’s Law of Continuing Change[0], the idea is that the less complexity a system has, the easier it is to change. Rather than plan for the future with extensible code, plan for the future with straightforward code. E.g. only abstract when the situation requires it, encourage simple duplication, use monoliths up front, scale vertically before horizontally,…

Sure, but when applying "simple is robust" principle it is extremely important to understand also intrinsic complexity. Not handling edge-cases etc does not make for robust code, no matter how much simpler it is.

There will always be edge cases, and yes they will make the code more complicated, but what really helps is automatic testing to make sure those edge cases don't break when making changes.

Re: Write code that is easy to delete, not easy to extend (2016)

#24

Post by worstspotgain »

At the risk of turning a unison into a chord, here's my two cents.

If:

1. You know where the 'creases' of orthogonality are. You've carved the turkey 1000 times and you never get it wrong anymore.

2. As a result, there is hardly any difference in complexity between code that is and isn't easy to extend.

Then write code that is easy to extend, not delete.

The question is whether your impression of the above is true. It won't be for most junior developers, and for many senior ones. If orthogonality isn't something you preoccupy yourself with, it probably won't be.

In my experience, the most telling heuristic is rewriting propensity. I'm talking about rewriting while writing, not about refactoring later. Unless something is obvious, you won't get the right design on the first write. You certainly won't get the correct extensible design. If you're instructed to write it just once, then by all means make it easy to delete.

Re: Write code that is easy to delete, not easy to extend (2016)

#25

Post by antonhag »

jumploops wrote: post #12

My favorite saying: “simple is robust” Similar in spirit to Lehman’s Law of Continuing Change[0], the idea is that the less complexity a system has, the easier it is to change. Rather than plan for the future with extensible code, plan for the future with straightforward code. E.g. only abstract when the situation requires it, encourage simple duplication, use monoliths up front, scale vertically before horizontally,…

+1, but I'm not sure if the "simple is robust" saying is straightforward enough? It opens up to discussion about what "simple" means and how it applies to the system (which apparently is a complex enough question to warrant the attention of the brilliant Rich Hickey).

Maybe "dumb is robust" or "straightforward is robust" capture the sentiment better?

Re: Write code that is easy to delete, not easy to extend (2016)

#26

Post by willtemperley »

sam_lowry_ wrote: post #7
Dwedit wrote: post #3

C# is pretty good about these, with extension methods and event handlers. With event handlers instead of virtual methods, it's much easier to separate the pieces.

And yet the worst ever code I saw was in C#. I hope I won't offend anyone pointing at it [1]. This is a somewhat popular tool to evaluate macroeconomic policies in the EU. A combination of language choice (C# as a natural language Microsoft Excel bosses tend to request from their interns to use), the usual churn of academic undergrads and loads of other cultural failures are the reasons this monster exsts. Someone sh…

I could write about creating the worst possible environment to be a software developer, having worked at the JRC for five years.

I'm not sure how constructive that would be. I'm still hurting because the IT department decided the only way to deploy my Java app was through rsyncing to a running Tomcat installation, allowing class files from several deployments previous to resurface in memory causing some beautiful bugs.

Or the time they decided to buy a Hadoop cluster at a cost of EUR 100k which I told IT dept they wouldn't be able to connect to from the outside world because the network rules are carved in stone. They bought it, and guess what, network ops said no.

The ten foot high touch screen and the car emissions data stored in Excel files and the 80 million euros spent on a website or the time the partner research group refused to release the data we had funded so we couldn't run workshops or release the project (around EUR 2 million).

The waste.

Re: Write code that is easy to delete, not easy to extend (2016)

#27

Post by jumploops »

arkh wrote: post #19
jumploops wrote: post #12

My favorite saying: “simple is robust” Similar in spirit to Lehman’s Law of Continuing Change[0], the idea is that the less complexity a system has, the easier it is to change. Rather than plan for the future with extensible code, plan for the future with straightforward code. E.g. only abstract when the situation requires it, encourage simple duplication, use monoliths up front, scale vertically before horizontally,…

> encourage simple duplication A rule I like to follow: - first time: write it - second time: copy it - third time: maybe refactor it

Agreed! I'll usually go one step further for early projects and lean towards 3rd time copy, 4th time refactor.

Example: So much early code is boilerplate CRUD, that it's tempting to abstract it. 9 times out of 10, you'll create a quasi-ORM that starts inheriting business logic and quickly grows omni-functions.

Eventually you may actually need this layer, assuming you're system miraculously scales to needing multiple services, datastores, and regions.

However this doesn't just apply to the obvious, and you may find omni-logic that made a feature more simple once and is currently blocking N new features.

Code is cheap, especially today. Complexity necessarily constrains, for better or worse.

Re: Write code that is easy to delete, not easy to extend (2016)

#28

Post by Terr_ »

planb wrote: post #9
ozim wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It still depends. Business line application yes and 10x yes. It will change it will move, don’t try to foresee business requirements. Just write something that will be easy to replace or throw away. Frameworks and libraries not really, for those you still have to adjust to whatever happens in the world but at much saner pace. Biggest issue is when devs want to write “framework” when they work on business line applica…

> Business line application yes and 10x yes. It will change it will move, don’t try to foresee business requirements. Just write something that will be easy to replace or throw away. This is correct, but from my experience of working in the same company for over a decade: You'll learn to foresee requirements. Especially the "we'll never need that" ones that become business critical after a few months/years...

Like the path that starts with a "simple" system of "soft deletes" for Foo records, which progresses through a period of developer-assisted "restores" or merges, and then they want even older info, and to make reports...

However it would have all been so much easier if they'd realized their business domain called for "Foo Revisions" in the first place.

Re: Write code that is easy to delete, not easy to extend (2016)

#29

Post by jumploops »

antonhag wrote: post #25
jumploops wrote: post #12

My favorite saying: “simple is robust” Similar in spirit to Lehman’s Law of Continuing Change[0], the idea is that the less complexity a system has, the easier it is to change. Rather than plan for the future with extensible code, plan for the future with straightforward code. E.g. only abstract when the situation requires it, encourage simple duplication, use monoliths up front, scale vertically before horizontally,…

+1, but I'm not sure if the "simple is robust" saying is straightforward enough? It opens up to discussion about what "simple" means and how it applies to the system (which apparently is a complex enough question to warrant the attention of the brilliant Rich Hickey). Maybe "dumb is robust" or "straightforward is robust" capture the sentiment better?

The usual metric is complexity, but that can be hard to measure in every instance.

Used within a team setting, what is simple is entirely subjective to that set of experiences.

Example: Redis is dead simple, but it's also an additional service. Depending on the team, the problem, and the scale, it might be best to use your existing RDBMS. A different set of circumstances may make Redis the best choice.

Note: I love "dumb is robust," as it ties simplicity and straightforwardness together, but I'm concerned it may carry an unnecessarily negative connotation to both the problems and the team.

Simple isn't necessarily dumb.

Re: Write code that is easy to delete, not easy to extend (2016)

#30

Post by Cthulhu_ »

qwertox wrote: post #10
ollysb wrote: post #8

Once you can load up a full codebase into an LLM I'm hoping the cost to update client code is significantly reduced. Then you could focus on evolving the design without all the grunt work.

I'm also betting on this, that one day I'll be able to dump a codebase into an LLM and it will clean up the code. Not rewrite it, not restructure it, just clean it up. Remove unused code and comment it sensibly. Maybe also suggest some tests for it and implement them separately.

Copilot already does this, at least for individual chunks of code (and text, for that matter). Not for a whole codebase, but I think that's going to be a matter of time.
Post reply on HN