3 ms·
What you describe can only be achieved in the short term at best. If something can be written in 10 different ways then it will be re-writting in 10 different
by dustinmoris 7y ago
What you describe can only be achieved in the short term at best.
If something can be written in 10 different ways then it will be re-writting in 10 different ways, because today you are leading your team and defining 1/10 ways. Tomorrow you leave and another lead or senior comes onboard and will disagree with your architecture and then slowly re-write everything.
Even worse, every time you add a new person on your team there's a 9/10 chance that they will disagree with your code. Your team will waste so much time between people just talking about how to write something because people get hung up on minor details instead of just trying to build a good application solving a real problem. The micro benefits of doing something in c# one way or another are in 99.999% of applications a complete waste of time.
Whenever I'm trying to hire C# developers (something I've been doing a lot over the years) I'm amazed how little people even know about C#. There's literally so much when you go deep that most people are completely clueless and it's getting worse and worse.
- m_fayer 7y agoI've seen what you describe happen. But it doesn't have to be that way. A wise lead may prefer a different path to their predecessor but respect the decisions that were made before them and realize that it's counterproductive to chaotically "drip-migrate." And good experienced developers will not get bogged down in endless debates with no clear winners. It just sounds like you've had some bad experiences.
- Clubber 7y agoI've seen it happen too and it's not a C# problem. To attribute a social problem to a programming language seems odd. A general rule is you made modifications to a codebase the same style / technology as the original codebase. I've seen bad developers not do this and it certainly turns into a mess.