3 ms·

> That locks the team into “as smart as me, but no smarter” No it doesn't. People aren't really "smarter" just because they write incomprehensible code. The

by whstl 3y ago

> That locks the team into “as smart as me, but no smarter” No it doesn't. People aren't really "smarter" just because they write incomprehensible code. The "smarter" way is being able to get things done without making a mess for yourself, the other people working with you, and after you. Over-engineering is not a positive quality. And "not easy to understand" doesn't mean "impossible". Maybe for Juniors! In fact, it's the people writing the difficult code that are forcing teams to be "as smart or smarter than me". It's time to stop rationalizing architecture astronautics. There is nothing "smarter", it's just annoying and expensive. - > One person rarely has all the ability plus all of the “on the ground” context that’s necessary to do great work across a larger system. And this is exactly why we need code to be comprehensible to everyone.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jt2190 3y ago
> People aren't really "smarter" just because they write incomprehensible code. Go reread what I wrote: I never made that assertion.
- whstl 3y ago
  Then we might have a misunderstanding. If so, I'm gonna need more context for the phrase “as smart as me, but no smarter”. In the original comment I never claimed there were different "smartness" levels across the ranks, and stated that Juniors can write code that is understandable. It's not about experience or smartness, it's simply about the importance of not overcomplicating the codebase to the best of your ability, no matter if you're a Junior or Senior. To me, that's being "smarter", and it's definitely possible to have this kind of "smarter" in any team.