3 ms·
Or maybe, just maybe, 'good practices' simply changed over the span of literally 20 years? Naah, it must simply be those 'perfection vs practicality' dichotomy
by Xeamek 3y ago
Or maybe, just maybe, 'good practices' simply changed over the span of literally 20 years?
Naah, it must simply be those 'perfection vs practicality' dichotomy again.
...Not to mention that your point is the definition of survivor ship bias.
Maybe the devs actually were super mad at themselves how the codebase looked cause it slowed down their development. Maybe they initially had 3 more times the ammount of anti-patterns, but they reduced them.
Or maybe that's how their roll, but the fact that this code shipped is almost insignificant when it comes to judging its quality.
We could spin infinite ammount of examples where bad code works, where good code fails, where bad code fails and were good code works.
How about we actually talk about arguments instead, though?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- aflag 3y agoI don't really think good practices changed that significantly in the last 20 years. Good practices must be seen like guidelines, not a strict dogma. They are mostly for the benefit or other humans to read and modify it without introducing (many) bugs. So, it's always a balance between the time you can reasonably imagine that code base will still be relevant, the number of people changing it, how much harder certain bending of the guidelines make it to change the code in future, etc.