4 ms·

No, Chesterton's Fence says for you to leave and think about why someone put it up originally, and figure out what was good about the fence. What you should ins

No, Chesterton's Fence says for you to leave and think about why someone put it up originally, and figure out what was good about the fence. What you should instead do is look at the fence and the dangers on the other side and see if it seems worth it. A lot of 'fences' in engineering are there for no good reason at all, so blocking until you can come up with some good reason for the fence is a waste of time. Chesterton would have you believe that the ancients had great wisdom, and that you should try to find that wisdom before you make changes to anything. The reality is, the ancients knew even less than you do, reasoned worse about problems, and used inferior systems for generating solutions. Progress! It's real! To remind what Chesterton said: "The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

nebulous1 7y ago
> No, Chesterton's Fence says for you to leave and think about why someone put it up originally, and figure out what was good about the fence I don't see as much difference between that and "figure out what the code does" as you do. I agree they have some differences, but ultimately a code's functionality and the reasons why its functionality exists in its current location are strongly related. The "go away first" part is a parable, I don't think you have to actually go away. Overall I'm somewhere between you and the article's author. I think your ignorant ancients argument has some merit, but only in certain cases. For instance, I don't see why the author is assuming people who promote flat hierarchy companies never actually considered what the function of the hierarchy was. This seems pretty ironic given that his whole point is not to assume that builders haven't engaged their brains. Also, as with ignorant ancients, it's possible that these hierarchies evolved, which could mean they're functional but not optimal, and may in fact no longer be required. On the technical side, I think we've all sat down to rewrite some code that looks too complex, only to have the reasons for the complexity become apparent as we research the subject. This might just be a case for better documentation.

nebulous1 7y ago

> No, Chesterton's Fence says for you to leave and think about why someone put it up originally, and figure out what was good about the fence I don't see as much difference between that and "figure out what the code does" as you do. I agree they have some differences, but ultimately a code's functionality and the reasons why its functionality exists in its current location are strongly related. The "go away first" part is a parable, I don't think you have to actually go away. Overall I'm somewhere between you and the article's author. I think your ignorant ancients argument has some merit, but only in certain cases. For instance, I don't see why the author is assuming people who promote flat hierarchy companies never actually considered what the function of the hierarchy was. This seems pretty ironic given that his whole point is not to assume that builders haven't engaged their brains. Also, as with ignorant ancients, it's possible that these hierarchies evolved, which could mean they're functional but not optimal, and may in fact no longer be required. On the technical side, I think we've all sat down to rewrite some code that looks too complex, only to have the reasons for the complexity become apparent as we research the subject. This might just be a case for better documentation.