4 ms·

I think you can check off everything on this list and still write inscrutable code. The worst code I've seen is code that was written so that only one person un

by SMrF 15y ago

I think you can check off everything on this list and still write inscrutable code. The worst code I've seen is code that was written so that only one person understands what's happening -- the author. Typically the code has too many branches and ridiculous call stacks. The writing analog is a run-on sentence. This usually happens when the programmer at fault is really smart but still hasn't learned that at some point in the future, someone needs to come along and understand the code he/she wrote. Maybe we need editors?

murkt 15y ago
What you think code reviewing is for?
- pkandathil 15y ago
  Totally agree that more code reviews are needed. I guess then the question becomes, how do you teach someone to do a good code review. Code reviews come from experience I get it, so if you are a junior programmer then you get your code reviewed by someone senior. But there is also one very important part to a code review. It being able to give good advice to someone. Not to be over critical but to provide help that is actually going to build someone up. At a company I use to work at, they did this beautifully. 1) Every check in required a code review by a peer. In your commit statement, you specify who reviewed your code. 2) If a senior programmer wrote code for a feature that wasn't too complex he would get a code review from a junior programmer. The junior programmer doing the code review, learned what good code looks likes and second learned how to give feedback in a constructive manner as he was talking to someone with more experience than him/her.
- gruseom 15y ago
  No, traditional code reviewing is just spot checking. That is analogous to having an editor only look at a few passages of a novel. An editor needs to work with the whole text. This is the trouble with formal code reviews. Pair programming attempts to solve this by making all code get reviewed as it gets written. Like it or hate it, that at least tries to solve the core problem.
  - mkjones 15y ago
    I suppose we're not "traditional" in this sense, but at Facebook we do somewhat more in-depth code reviews than just spot checking. Generally if you're modifying an existing system, you get one or two people who're familiar with that system (and thus know the big picture of code design, layout, etc) to review your diff. If you're writing something totally new, you usually throw ideas and mocks (either UI or code-structure) until you decide on a solution that works. I've found this to be pretty good at helping newer engineers write good (and idiomatic) code without hindering development speed much.
- jasongullickson 15y ago
  Code review might serve the same purpose (depending on how you do it) but I've had a hard time getting organizations to "buy in" to code reviews for various reasons (fear, pride, cost, etc.). On the other hand having the Architect act as editor after the code is written not only provides the "code review" function, but it provides the additional benefit of providing the Architect with feedback on the original design, and how the abstract design ideas are translated during the construction phase. I think it would improve communication on both sides (Architect and programmer) as well as overall quality...very nice...
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
chriserin 15y ago
Titling people editors, the ones that are senior in an organization and might be titled as architects or senior engineers, now, would be incredible. With their current titles they are involved much more at the beginning of the process than at the end, when 'editor' implies the opposite. It would be nice to have the senior folk guide the developer as opposed to handing off a blueprint and getting out of the way. (Not that its like that everywhere, just some places I've been)
- hook 15y ago
  Agreed. And here is an example where, without comment scores, it is impossible to know how many other people feel the same way.
  - chc 15y ago
    The best approach — with or without upvotes — would be to ask people if you want that information. Upvotes wouldn't reliably provide it — I and many others feel the best use of the voting system is to promote insightful and thought-provoking comments even if I don't believe they're ultimately THE right answer, and we vote accordingly.
  - mattgreenrocks 15y ago
    I'm not sure why that is relevant here. We're not voting on anything, just discussing it. Besides, you could always send a message to the author and ask if you're interested.
- aaronblohowiak 15y ago
  This is the linux model. First, discussion then front-line coders create a patch, then lieutenants review the patch and submit to their superiors who review the patch and ultimately, all patches go through Linus before being committed to kernel. This way, the style and potential issues are enforced by the most senior people that are the stewards for the code base. Linus has deputized a few people to commit without his review, I believe.. but this is after years of working with them.
- nahname 15y ago
yxhuvud 15y ago
No, it is a run on paragraph. The equivalent of a run on sentence is a method that is way too long. Also, we practice code review at our work. That is definitely a way of fulfilling the role of being editors.
abecedarius 15y ago
I've taken the editor role in a couple of recent contract jobs. While the clients were both complimentary, I think I didn't do too well for one of them, where I came in to an existing codebase with a shortage of domain knowledge -- and this is going to be a general problem for a specialist editor, more so than with prose. I was more like a copyeditor. (For the other client I'd written the code they started with.)
mironathetin 15y ago
This problem is hard to solve. It is not in the interest of the programmer to allow others to understand his code. That would make him easily replaceable. I know quite a few consultants who write like that on purpose and secure their jobs this way. Programmers are also not rewarded for clean code. They are rewarded for quickly delivered code. Beautiful code that is delivered two weeks too late is usually a bad idea. This is business logic. It is easy to measure, how long it takes a programmer to develop code. It is much harder to measure, how much time is wasted to maintain badly written code. Much speaks against writing clean code, little is in favour. The only persons interested in this are later maintainers and academics. Lets face it: whats wrong with code that is a bit messy but does its job correct and quick? If the author himself has to edit it and does not understand it anymore, then he/she will refactor. If there is no need to touch this code because it does its job, who cares? If the original author is already gone and there was no time to make someone else familiar with his code and style, think about how people are treated in your company and refactor management instead of code.

by SMrF 15y ago

murkt 15y ago

What you think code reviewing is for?

pkandathil 15y ago
Totally agree that more code reviews are needed. I guess then the question becomes, how do you teach someone to do a good code review. Code reviews come from experience I get it, so if you are a junior programmer then you get your code reviewed by someone senior. But there is also one very important part to a code review. It being able to give good advice to someone. Not to be over critical but to provide help that is actually going to build someone up. At a company I use to work at, they did this beautifully. 1) Every check in required a code review by a peer. In your commit statement, you specify who reviewed your code. 2) If a senior programmer wrote code for a feature that wasn't too complex he would get a code review from a junior programmer. The junior programmer doing the code review, learned what good code looks likes and second learned how to give feedback in a constructive manner as he was talking to someone with more experience than him/her.
gruseom 15y ago
No, traditional code reviewing is just spot checking. That is analogous to having an editor only look at a few passages of a novel. An editor needs to work with the whole text. This is the trouble with formal code reviews. Pair programming attempts to solve this by making all code get reviewed as it gets written. Like it or hate it, that at least tries to solve the core problem.
- mkjones 15y ago
  I suppose we're not "traditional" in this sense, but at Facebook we do somewhat more in-depth code reviews than just spot checking. Generally if you're modifying an existing system, you get one or two people who're familiar with that system (and thus know the big picture of code design, layout, etc) to review your diff. If you're writing something totally new, you usually throw ideas and mocks (either UI or code-structure) until you decide on a solution that works. I've found this to be pretty good at helping newer engineers write good (and idiomatic) code without hindering development speed much.
jasongullickson 15y ago
Code review might serve the same purpose (depending on how you do it) but I've had a hard time getting organizations to "buy in" to code reviews for various reasons (fear, pride, cost, etc.). On the other hand having the Architect act as editor after the code is written not only provides the "code review" function, but it provides the additional benefit of providing the Architect with feedback on the original design, and how the abstract design ideas are translated during the construction phase. I think it would improve communication on both sides (Architect and programmer) as well as overall quality...very nice...
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

chriserin 15y ago

Titling people editors, the ones that are senior in an organization and might be titled as architects or senior engineers, now, would be incredible. With their current titles they are involved much more at the beginning of the process than at the end, when 'editor' implies the opposite. It would be nice to have the senior folk guide the developer as opposed to handing off a blueprint and getting out of the way. (Not that its like that everywhere, just some places I've been)

hook 15y ago
Agreed. And here is an example where, without comment scores, it is impossible to know how many other people feel the same way.
- chc 15y ago
  The best approach — with or without upvotes — would be to ask people if you want that information. Upvotes wouldn't reliably provide it — I and many others feel the best use of the voting system is to promote insightful and thought-provoking comments even if I don't believe they're ultimately THE right answer, and we vote accordingly.
- mattgreenrocks 15y ago
  I'm not sure why that is relevant here. We're not voting on anything, just discussing it. Besides, you could always send a message to the author and ask if you're interested.
aaronblohowiak 15y ago
This is the linux model. First, discussion then front-line coders create a patch, then lieutenants review the patch and submit to their superiors who review the patch and ultimately, all patches go through Linus before being committed to kernel. This way, the style and potential issues are enforced by the most senior people that are the stewards for the code base. Linus has deputized a few people to commit without his review, I believe.. but this is after years of working with them.
nahname 15y ago

yxhuvud 15y ago

No, it is a run on paragraph. The equivalent of a run on sentence is a method that is way too long. Also, we practice code review at our work. That is definitely a way of fulfilling the role of being editors.

abecedarius 15y ago

I've taken the editor role in a couple of recent contract jobs. While the clients were both complimentary, I think I didn't do too well for one of them, where I came in to an existing codebase with a shortage of domain knowledge -- and this is going to be a general problem for a specialist editor, more so than with prose. I was more like a copyeditor. (For the other client I'd written the code they started with.)

mironathetin 15y ago

This problem is hard to solve. It is not in the interest of the programmer to allow others to understand his code. That would make him easily replaceable. I know quite a few consultants who write like that on purpose and secure their jobs this way. Programmers are also not rewarded for clean code. They are rewarded for quickly delivered code. Beautiful code that is delivered two weeks too late is usually a bad idea. This is business logic. It is easy to measure, how long it takes a programmer to develop code. It is much harder to measure, how much time is wasted to maintain badly written code. Much speaks against writing clean code, little is in favour. The only persons interested in this are later maintainers and academics. Lets face it: whats wrong with code that is a bit messy but does its job correct and quick? If the author himself has to edit it and does not understand it anymore, then he/she will refactor. If there is no need to touch this code because it does its job, who cares? If the original author is already gone and there was no time to make someone else familiar with his code and style, think about how people are treated in your company and refactor management instead of code.