4 ms·
This doesn’t account for the cost of dependencies (an import statement is only one line!), so this mindset would result in taking on big dependencies to limit “
by draw_down 6y ago
This doesn’t account for the cost of dependencies (an import statement is only one line!), so this mindset would result in taking on big dependencies to limit “lines of code”.
You must be very careful about dependencies. I’d sooner take a rule to arbitrarily limit dependencies than lines of code.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- blakehaswell 6y agoI agree. I don’t think lines of code is necessarily the right thing to budget, especially if you limit it to “lines of code written by our team”. But there is something interesting in this idea. Our software is growing immeasurably complex. We’re piling on more and more layers of abstraction. Ostensibly the goal is to make our lives easier. But in reality we’ve got companies throwing hundreds or thousands of developers at the problem of building a wiki or a social network, and they end up building these Rube Goldberg machines where 99% of the effort is spent on things other than the actual problem users want the software to solve. Moore’s law has been totally offset by Wirth’s law[0], and as an industry I don’t see us doing anything about it. Even if lines of code is the wrong constraint, we could do with learning how to do more with less. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirth%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirth%27s_law
- draw_down 6y agoThis is driven by incentives in industry, the need to ship in a certain timeframe, the valuing of building new things over maintaining existing things. You can’t fix it with stuff like this sort of rule.