4 ms·

I think that's a bit cruel. Usually mess happens because lots of people with different ideas about the future needs and best structure meet up in the code - and

• lukan 2y ago
  Well, that is why I said with those words it sounds like this to me, not that he or she was in fact responsible. (at least this is what I meant) "Also codebases get too large for any one person to refactor them into shape in the time they have each day." Which is why modules, or subprojects were invented. Or however you want to call it, if one person is only responsible for a small part and not everyone for everything. And yes, there is also the non trivial problem of time management.
  • t43562 2y ago
    yup, but the style of the modules starts to diverge as different people maintain them. IMO one does want people whose fulltime job is to looking at a codebase orthogonally to those who are just implementing a feature. People who make sure it builds fast, is secure tries to be consistent to some degree etc. Many companies call teams/indivuduals like this a "cost centre" and disparage it because they are dolts.
    • lukan 2y ago
      If those code checkers are experienced programmers, who do not annoy people with arbitary guidelines and standards, then yes, this might also work. But I do not think they are always necessary as a seperate full time role, if everything works normal otherwise. And with working normal, I mean there is enough time to refactor and document and clean up and is actually done.