3 ms·

> There's no way to codify concrete requirements for handling every possible way code can be improved. If the change can’t be codified, then it calls into ques

by jt2190 7y ago

> There's no way to codify concrete requirements for handling every possible way code can be improved. If the change can’t be codified, then it calls into question why the change needs to happen at all. Assuming that there is some improvement that can be justified, then explain it to the team, and have the team start reviewing for it. By not going through the process of explaining the improvement to the team, it signals that the team can’t be trusted to learn and improve code on their own. Again, if that’s the case, a conversation needs to happen about whether there should be a team at all.

kortilla 7y ago
If you don’t trust someone to change your code to make small improvements, it sounds like you have a trust problem, not the other way around. Working on a software project as a large team is like growing a garden, not building a house. Just because someone planted a hedge doesn’t mean it can’t be improved by pruning it.
- blub 7y ago
  Trust would allow that the code is modified in the first place, but then a code review needs to happen anyway to ensure that at least one more person is aware of the change and as a sanity check that the change makes sense.
habitue 7y ago
> If the change can’t be codified, then it calls into question why the change needs to happen at all. No, there are lots of things that are difficult to codify but are very valuable. If you look at law and policy you'll find plenty of examples. This is akin to saying "If I can't formalize it mathematically, it doesn't exist" which is obviously false Additionally, there's the category of things which are maybe in principle codifiable as requirements, but are tedious to specify. I would definitely put aesthetic judgements about code in this bucket. It's much simpler if you say something like "and the developers will use their best judgement on how to write clean maintainable code" and be done with it

by jt2190 7y ago

kortilla 7y ago

If you don’t trust someone to change your code to make small improvements, it sounds like you have a trust problem, not the other way around. Working on a software project as a large team is like growing a garden, not building a house. Just because someone planted a hedge doesn’t mean it can’t be improved by pruning it.

blub 7y ago
Trust would allow that the code is modified in the first place, but then a code review needs to happen anyway to ensure that at least one more person is aware of the change and as a sanity check that the change makes sense.

habitue 7y ago

> If the change can’t be codified, then it calls into question why the change needs to happen at all. No, there are lots of things that are difficult to codify but are very valuable. If you look at law and policy you'll find plenty of examples. This is akin to saying "If I can't formalize it mathematically, it doesn't exist" which is obviously false Additionally, there's the category of things which are maybe in principle codifiable as requirements, but are tedious to specify. I would definitely put aesthetic judgements about code in this bucket. It's much simpler if you say something like "and the developers will use their best judgement on how to write clean maintainable code" and be done with it