3 ms·

The article is pretty clear that the author thinks that the code should have been written correctly to begin with. It's the fact that management prevented this

The article is pretty clear that the author thinks that the code should have been written correctly to begin with. It's the fact that management prevented this from happening that causes people to have to fix the code. The idea is that if the job was "done right the first time" then the total labor expenses would be much, much lower.

ganeshkrishnan 8y ago
Code can never be written "correctly" whatever that means. Even if it was, library changes will break it. And none of the other jobs mentioned are bullshit. They are all required in various degrees. I call it bullshit book
- kranner 8y ago
  Surely you'd agree that there is a spectrum of shoddiness (and hence required maintenance) of code? The specific example of shoddy code given in the book is that of a programmer gradually replacing a completely ineffectual algorithm written by an incompetent academic who also happened to be his boss. The algorithm was designed to "mimic speech" (this part is not very clear in the book) and the programmer replaces it with Eliza-like heuristics. You should read the book before judging it so harshly.
- MaulingMonkey 8y ago
  Even when cleaning up preventable messes in code, those messes were often caused or made worse by trying to "do it right the first time" and tacking on a bunch of extra complexity in the process instead of just doing the simple thing that works for now. Start small. Iterate. Do it wrong. Embrace the fact that we're imperfect, not oracles of the future. I'll gladly prefer fixing up some shoddy code over needing to tear down and re-architecture from scratch a larger, even well designed system, that solves the wrong problem. Not all preventable problems are worth preventing. Preventing them causes other problems, if only the problem of wasting a lot of time fixing many non-problems that you mistakenly thought were potential problems in an attempt to do so.
js8 8y ago
Another example is maintaining home-grown code that could be replaced by an off-the-shelf solution, but nobody is willing to pay the price for it or risk change.

ganeshkrishnan 8y ago

Code can never be written "correctly" whatever that means. Even if it was, library changes will break it. And none of the other jobs mentioned are bullshit. They are all required in various degrees. I call it bullshit book

kranner 8y ago
Surely you'd agree that there is a spectrum of shoddiness (and hence required maintenance) of code? The specific example of shoddy code given in the book is that of a programmer gradually replacing a completely ineffectual algorithm written by an incompetent academic who also happened to be his boss. The algorithm was designed to "mimic speech" (this part is not very clear in the book) and the programmer replaces it with Eliza-like heuristics. You should read the book before judging it so harshly.
MaulingMonkey 8y ago
Even when cleaning up preventable messes in code, those messes were often caused or made worse by trying to "do it right the first time" and tacking on a bunch of extra complexity in the process instead of just doing the simple thing that works for now. Start small. Iterate. Do it wrong. Embrace the fact that we're imperfect, not oracles of the future. I'll gladly prefer fixing up some shoddy code over needing to tear down and re-architecture from scratch a larger, even well designed system, that solves the wrong problem. Not all preventable problems are worth preventing. Preventing them causes other problems, if only the problem of wasting a lot of time fixing many non-problems that you mistakenly thought were potential problems in an attempt to do so.

js8 8y ago

Another example is maintaining home-grown code that could be replaced by an off-the-shelf solution, but nobody is willing to pay the price for it or risk change.