431–440 of 599 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find abstractable parts in code by thinking about potential names for it. If there is no good name for a potential common function, it's probably not a good idea to extract the section into a function. Maybe it can be extracted into two separate functions with good names?
This is a proxy for having a well-defined purpose for a function.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You sound really angry about it and you've hung onto it for quite some time. A good friend of mine used to tell me 'who cares?' when I would rant on about things just like you just did. It is honestly startling to hear that in response to a rant. If you answer 'i care!', then that is exactly the problem. Let it go, it isn't worth it. At the end of the day, I'd say this is your problem to work on. You didn't step back…
Your supposition is that caring about the quality of your work is a problem. We should simply not continue this conversation because we fundamentally disagree. I don't get out of bed for "I don't care". This other developer has put this new business at risk of closing. Maybe you don't care, but someone somewhere does.
I don’t think that you „fundamentally disagree“, but that you have different understandings on when the time has come to quit caring. And given the limited amount of things we can care about during our lifetime I find it certainly helpful to reevaluate from time to time what I decide to care about.
I agree that your coworkers behavior is harmful to a team’s productivity and I would seek the conversation to resolve the disagreement in a professional manner. But if there is no path of a resolution, I would escalate the problem, stop caring and get on with my life, because there is nothing more I could’ve done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That can be boiled down to the “Rule of 3”. My CTO often asks me to implement a feature to do X and make it “generic enough to handle future use cases”. My answer is always the same - either give me at least three use cases now or I am going to make it work with this one use case. If we have another client that needs the feature in the future then we will revisit it. Of course, there are some features that we know in…
The Rule of 3 is a great rule, except when it isn't. I had a colleague some time ago who wrote a couple of data importers for FAA airspace boundaries. There were two data feeds we cared about, "class airspace" and "special use airspace". These airspace feeds have nearly identical formats, with altitudes, detailed boundary definitions, and such. There are a few minor differences between the two, for example different…
For some reasons humans have this deep need to try and boil things down to bulleted lists which in the domain of programming are just incredibly not useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sandi Metz's blog (and book) are an absolute gold mine. I'm a junior developer ( If there was a required reading list for professional developers, I would put her work on with zero hesitation, I feel it to be that important.
Which book are you referring to?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Rule of 3 is a great rule, except when it isn't. I had a colleague some time ago who wrote a couple of data importers for FAA airspace boundaries. There were two data feeds we cared about, "class airspace" and "special use airspace". These airspace feeds have nearly identical formats, with altitudes, detailed boundary definitions, and such. There are a few minor differences between the two, for example different…
Every single rule or advice in programming is good until it isn't. OOP is good until it isn't, function programming is good until it isn't, premature optimization is the root of all evil until it is the root of all good. For some reasons humans have this deep need to try and boil things down to bulleted lists which in the domain of programming are just incredibly not useful.
I’ve usually heard this phenomenon called “incidental duplication,” and it’s something I find myself teaching junior engineers about quite often. There are a lot of situations where 3-5 lines of many methods follow basically the same pattern, and it can be aggravating to look at. “Don’t repeat yourself!” Right? So you try to extract that boilerplate into a method, and it’s fine until the very next change. Then you ne…
That can be boiled down to the “Rule of 3”. My CTO often asks me to implement a feature to do X and make it “generic enough to handle future use cases”. My answer is always the same - either give me at least three use cases now or I am going to make it work with this one use case. If we have another client that needs the feature in the future then we will revisit it. Of course, there are some features that we know in…
The answer to this is usually YAGNI.
That is, don’t plan for a future you might never have. Code in a way that won’t back you into a corner, but you don’t know what the future’s cases might be (or if there even will be any) so you can’t possibly design in a generic way to handle them. Often you just end up with over-engineered generec-ness that doesn’t actually handle the future cases when they crop up. Better to wait until they do come up to refactor or redesign.
Some people argue to design in a way that lets you rewrite and replace parts of the system easily instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is about ownership. I agree there's no need to be personally attached to your own code. I have no problem with someone taking ownership of my work (understand refactoring/abstracting the crap out of it for the sake of Engineering). But the one day that person leaves the team, you have no choice but deal with that person's mental model, as nice or convoluted it was while refactoring. I've had this experience in e…
Of course, we all have had that experience! So you have a choice... realize it is going to happen and learn to deal with it in a productive manner, or just continue to get upset about it. I know which choice I'm working towards...
edit: I should remind for context, I have no problem with the rewrite, but I have one with the team being handed over-abstracted code; I found that this happens mostly with more junior profiles, the same that don't stay around for long.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That can be boiled down to the “Rule of 3”. My CTO often asks me to implement a feature to do X and make it “generic enough to handle future use cases”. My answer is always the same - either give me at least three use cases now or I am going to make it work with this one use case. If we have another client that needs the feature in the future then we will revisit it. Of course, there are some features that we know in…
The Rule of 3 is a great rule, except when it isn't. I had a colleague some time ago who wrote a couple of data importers for FAA airspace boundaries. There were two data feeds we cared about, "class airspace" and "special use airspace". These airspace feeds have nearly identical formats, with altitudes, detailed boundary definitions, and such. There are a few minor differences between the two, for example different…
I would argue this is a good rule of thumb, but nothing should ever be a hard unbreakable rule. The usual refactoring rules should apply too: if 95% of the code is the same, you should probably go back and refactor even without a third use case because it sounds like the two use cases are really just one use case with slight variation.