5 ms·

Agreed. It's not terribly hard to think like the person who wrote it, even if they went rube-goldbergesq, if you understand where they were coming from. If the

• fuckstick 4y ago
  I think who you’re replying to is being sarcastic (a clue is using a pejorative - “architecture astronaut”). FWIW, I agree with their sentiment and disagree with yours.
  • randomdata 4y ago
    Yes, exactly. Even architecture astronauts are well intentioned, and if you understand the conditions under which they worked then it is quite easy to follow what they've done. It only becomes difficult when that context is lost. So hopefully they've encoded that context in tests. Worst case, if you never learned how to read code, you can throw the implementation away and the intention will remain validatable. But if you don't have the business end of the code documented... Good luck!
    • fuckstick 4y ago
      > Yes, exactly. Even architecture astronauts are well intentioned, and if you understand the conditions under which they worked then it is quite easy to follow what they've done. It only becomes difficult when that context is lost. I posit you lack either the experience of the imagination if you think "business context" is the only factor in the development of an unmaintainable mess.
• halostatue 4y ago
  Usually, when an architecture astronaut gets involved, the business details are immediately lost in the overwhelming slop of what has been built. And usually, the people having to deal with this crap are ones who have never dealt with the system in the first place, and the business people and the technical people are both gone from the company…