4 ms·
Well, if a given architecture doesn't allow for another solution, that might be the only implementable choice. Remaking the core architecture to solve an obscu
by 411111111111111 4y ago
Well, if a given architecture doesn't allow for another solution, that might be the only implementable choice.
Remaking the core architecture to solve an obscure bug which only happens when you've got overlapping leap years and leap seconds is most certainly a bad decision.
For a simple example: Phillips hue movement detectors don't work for a very short time before new years. (My guess is that they're validating the year for the activation signal). I don't know how the bug occurs, but i can imagine several ways in which this could become unfixable if a given architecture was chosen... I still want it to work though, so I'd really like it if they'd just added something like your example.
- kubanczyk 4y agoHow about these implementable choices for a dirty fix: - make lightbulbs work in these last seconds of the year 2022 and only that year - make lightbulbs work in the last seconds of years 2023-2036 or more This is the distinction I've been trying to make: there are sometimes powerful incentives pushing workers into the former, even if the latter could be approximately the same effort.
- 411111111111111 4y agoAh, I misunderstood your example in that case. I was thinking more about solving it at the source vs essentially just catching the error case and overwriting the behavior. And while the latter is definitely "code smell"/technical debt... Sometimes, there aren't really any good solutions to a given problem
- morelisp 4y agoI think it's more likely you just haven't been in a company with coworkers who write this kind of code chronically, and also opt out of any participation in architecture meetings or design reviews. Just interminable finger-pointing and stop energy any time there's some critique.