5 ms·

For non-tech people the code should be a black box they shouldn't know the internal details. In terms of refactoring there is no way to give a Cost Benefit ana

For non-tech people the code should be a black box they shouldn't know the internal details. In terms of refactoring there is no way to give a Cost Benefit analysis as that's too subjective. This should be a maintenance cost that's factored into the project at a high level. So you would say there a X days per year (normally about 20%) of the working days of the year spent on maintenance. Company I'm at has this and if you're doing this type of work then you have timecodes to book your time against. That includes refactoring, re-architecture, tech debt, updating deps ...etc. PM's can't override this for their own project i.e. they have to allow for 20% off project activities in there Project Plan. Devs shouldn't spend more that 20% of their time doing these activities over the FY. Example here would be in the UK we have something called a MOT which you have to legally get it's like a minimal maintenance you have to get on your car. Most people spend a little more though than the minimum.

rand49an 5y ago
An MOT is a bad example because they don't do any maintenance at all. An MOT is essentially a safety certificate to make sure you aren't driving around in a car that's due to fall apart and injure yourself and others. How you attain that certificate (by ongoing maintenance) doesn't matter.
- Dave3of5 5y ago
  No it's not. The MOT is a test that you have performed maintenance so the example stands. You can do 0 maintenance and still get your MOT. likewise in software you can do zero maintenance and still have a good well working product that follows best practice. In the case I gave it's hours book on the maintenance project that is the test but you could very well have other measures and I've seen these in many projects. Things like linters, dependency bots, unit tests, e2e tests, code coverage, Cyclomatic complexity ...etc.
edanm 5y ago
> For non-tech people the code should be a black box they shouldn't know the internal details. Ideally, yes, though in practice this usually breaks in various ways, especially when problems occur. E.g. the President of a country probably doesn't need to be a firefighter, but if there's suddenly a massive fire, I assume he'd need to be briefed in far more detail to help call shots around the type of response. > In terms of refactoring there is no way to give a Cost Benefit analysis as that's too subjective. I mean, you probably won't get a very correct Cost Benefit analysis, but you have to do something. The rest of your post is you describing that something - if you elect to spend 20% of your time on maintenance, that's effectively giving it a certain amount of weight compared to other things you can be doing with your time. That's certainly one way to work. Personally, I think a more flexible approach is better. E.g. new startup-ish projects should usually spend a lot less time refactoring, for multiple reasons, whereas more established long-term projects should spend much closer to 20%, or maybe more.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  > I assume he'd need to be briefed in far more detail to help call shots around the type of response. I feel like this is something a lot of presidents (or VP’s, or Directors, etc.) think, but really, instead of taking time away from the professionals doing the fighting to explain to them the minutiae of blowback, the best thing they can do is say “I trust you, put it out.” And then leave the pros to do their job.
- Nevermark 5y ago
  I think that is true when the goal is to get something well understood out quickly. In other cases, it is more important to get things right and continual refactoring is the fastest way to find an acceptable architecture to a novel problem. In either approach, when speed is of essence, a limited scope helps avoid either producing insurmountable technical debt, or an unterminating research rabbit hole, respectively.

rand49an 5y ago

An MOT is a bad example because they don't do any maintenance at all. An MOT is essentially a safety certificate to make sure you aren't driving around in a car that's due to fall apart and injure yourself and others. How you attain that certificate (by ongoing maintenance) doesn't matter.

Dave3of5 5y ago
No it's not. The MOT is a test that you have performed maintenance so the example stands. You can do 0 maintenance and still get your MOT. likewise in software you can do zero maintenance and still have a good well working product that follows best practice. In the case I gave it's hours book on the maintenance project that is the test but you could very well have other measures and I've seen these in many projects. Things like linters, dependency bots, unit tests, e2e tests, code coverage, Cyclomatic complexity ...etc.

edanm 5y ago

> For non-tech people the code should be a black box they shouldn't know the internal details. Ideally, yes, though in practice this usually breaks in various ways, especially when problems occur. E.g. the President of a country probably doesn't need to be a firefighter, but if there's suddenly a massive fire, I assume he'd need to be briefed in far more detail to help call shots around the type of response. > In terms of refactoring there is no way to give a Cost Benefit analysis as that's too subjective. I mean, you probably won't get a very correct Cost Benefit analysis, but you have to do something. The rest of your post is you describing that something - if you elect to spend 20% of your time on maintenance, that's effectively giving it a certain amount of weight compared to other things you can be doing with your time. That's certainly one way to work. Personally, I think a more flexible approach is better. E.g. new startup-ish projects should usually spend a lot less time refactoring, for multiple reasons, whereas more established long-term projects should spend much closer to 20%, or maybe more.

Aeolun 5y ago
> I assume he'd need to be briefed in far more detail to help call shots around the type of response. I feel like this is something a lot of presidents (or VP’s, or Directors, etc.) think, but really, instead of taking time away from the professionals doing the fighting to explain to them the minutiae of blowback, the best thing they can do is say “I trust you, put it out.” And then leave the pros to do their job.
Nevermark 5y ago
I think that is true when the goal is to get something well understood out quickly. In other cases, it is more important to get things right and continual refactoring is the fastest way to find an acceptable architecture to a novel problem. In either approach, when speed is of essence, a limited scope helps avoid either producing insurmountable technical debt, or an unterminating research rabbit hole, respectively.