4 ms·

Or rather, senior devs have learned to care more for having clear code rather than (over-)applying principles like DRY, separation of concerns etc., while junio

• stahorn 2y ago
  When you thought you made "smart" solutions and many years later you have to go in and fix bugs in it, is usually when you learn this.
  • newswasboring 2y ago
    There is a human side to this which I am going through right now. The first full framework I made is proving to be developer unfriendly in the long run, I put more emphasis on performance than readability (performance was the KPI we were trying to improve at the time). Now I am working with people who are new to the codebase, and I observed they were hesitant to criticize it in front of me. I had to actively start saying "lets remove <frame work name>, its outdated and bad". Eventually I found it liberating, it also helped me detach my self worth from my work, something I struggle with day to day.
• orwin 2y ago
  My 'principle' for DRY is : twice is fine, trice is worth an abstraction (if you think it has a small to moderate chance to happen again). I used to apply it no matter what, soi guess it's progress...
  • whstl 2y ago
    I really dislike how this principle ends up being used in practice. A good abstraction that makes actual sense is perfectly good even when it's used only once. On the other hand, the idea of deduplicating code by creating an indirection is often not worth it for long-term maintenance, and is precisely the kind of thing that will cause maintenance headaches and anti-patterns. For example: don't mix file system or low-level database access with your business code, just create a proper abstraction. But deduplicating very small fragments of same-abstraction-level can have detrimental effects in the long run.
    • ahoka 2y ago
      I think the main problem with these abstractions that they are merely indirections in most cases, limiting the usefulness to several use cases (sometimes to things that never going to be needed). To quote Dijsktra: "The purpose of abstraction is not to be vague, but to create a new semantic level in which one can be absolutely precise."
    • n0w 2y ago
      I can't remember where I picked it up from, but nowadays I try to be mindful of when things are "accidentally" repeated and when they are "necessarily" repeated. Abstractions that encapsulate the latter tend to be a good idea regardless of how many times you've repeated a piece of code in practice.
      • codeflo 2y ago
        Exactly, but distinguishing the two that requires an excellent understanding of the problem space, and can’t at all be figured out in the solution space (i.e., by only looking at the code). But less experienced people only look at the code. In theory, a thousand repetitions would be fine if each one encodes an independent bit of information in the problem space.
    • loup-vaillant 2y ago
      The overarching criterion really is how it affects locality of behaviour: repeating myself and adding an indirection are both bad, the trick is to pick the one that will affect locality of behaviour the least. https://loup-vaillant.fr/articles/source-of-readability#avoid-repeating-yourself https://loup-vaillant.fr/articles/source-of-readability#avoi...
  • ikari_pl 2y ago
    twice is fine... except some senior devs apply it to the entire file (today I found the second entire file/class copied and pasted over to another place... the newer copy is not used either)
  • tomohawk 2y ago
    "Better a little copying than a little dependency" - Russ Cox
  • syntaxfree 2y ago
    WET, write everything twice
  • aitchnyu 2y ago
    Do you use a copy paste detector to find third copy?
• JauntyHatAngle 2y ago
  I know it's overused, but I do find myself saying YAGNI to my junior devs more and more often, as I find they go off on a quest for the perfect abstraction and spend days yak shaving as a result.
  • silisili 2y ago
    Yes! I work with many folks objectively way younger and smarter than me. The two bad habits I try to break them of are abstractions and what ifs. They spend so much time chasing perfection that it negatively affects their output. Multiple times a day I find myself saying 'is that a realistic problem for our use case?' I don't blame them, it's admirable. But I feel like we need to teach YAGNI. Anymore I feel like a saboteur, polluting our codebase with suboptimal solutions. It's weird because my own career was different. I was a code spammer who learned to wrangle it into something more thoughtful. But I'm dealing with overly thoughtful folks I'm trying to get to spam more code out, so to speak.
    • reshlo 2y ago
      I’ve had the opposite experience before. As a young developer, there were a number of times where I advocated for doing something “the right way” instead of “the good enough way”, was overruled by seniors, and then later I had to fix a bug by doing it “the right way” like I’d wanted to in the first place. Doing it the right way from the start would have saved so much time.
      • spinningslate 2y ago
        This thread is a great illustration of the reality that there are no hard rules, judgement matters, and we don't always get things right. I'm pretty long-in-the-tooth and feel like I've gone through 3 stages in my career: 1. Junior dev where everything was new, and did "the simplest thing that could possibly work" because I wasn't capable of anything else (I was barely capable of the simple thing). 2. Mid-experience, where I'd learned the basics and thought I knew everything. This is probably where I wrote my worst code: over-abstracted, using every cool language/library feature I knew, justified on the basis of "yeah, but it's reusable and will solve lots of stuff in future even though I don't know what it is yet". 3. Older and hopefully a bit wiser. A visceral rejection of speculative reuse as a justification for solving anything beyond the current problem. Much more focus on really understanding the underlying problem that actually needs solved: less interest in the latest and greatest technology to do that with, and a much larger appreciation of "boring technology" (aka stuff that's proven and reliable). The focus on really understanding the problem tends to create more stable abstractions which do get reused. But that's emergent, not speculative ahead-of-time. There are judgements all the way through that: sometimes deciding to invest in more foundational code, but by default sticking to YAGNI. Most of all is seeing my value not as weilding techno armageddon, but solving problems for users and customers. I still have a deep fascination with exploring and understanding new tech developments and techniques. I just have a much higher bar to adopting them for production use.
• sgu999 2y ago
  good devs*, not all senior devs have learned that, sadly. As a junior dev I've worked under the rule of senior devs who were over-applying arbitrary principles, and that wasn't fun. Some absolute nerds have a hard time understanding where their narrow expertise is meant to fit, and they usually don't get better with age.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• zeroq 2y ago
  As someone who recently had to go over a large chunk of code written by myself some 10-15 years ago I strongly agree with this sentiment. Despite being a mature programmer already at that time, I found a lot of magic and gotchas that were supposed to be, and felt at the time, super clever, but now, without a context, or prior version to compare, they are simply overcomplicated.
• devjab 2y ago
  I find that it’s typically the other way around as things like DRY, SOLID and most things “clean code” are hopeless anti-patterns peddled by people like Uncle Bob who haven’t actually worked in software development since Fortran was the most popular language. Not that a lot of these things are bad as a principle. They come with a lot of “okish” ideas, but if you follow them religiously you’re going to write really bad code. I think the only principle in programming I think can be followed at all times is YAGNI (you aren’t going to need it). I think every programming course, book, whatever should start by telling you to never, ever, abstract things before you absolutely can’t avoid it. This includes DRY. It’s a billion times better to have similar code in multiple locations that are isolated in their purpose, so that down the line, two-hundred developers later you’re not sitting with code where you’ll need to “go to definition” fifteen times before you get to the code you actually need to find. Of course the flip-side is that, sometimes, it’s ok to abstract or reuse code. But if you don’t have to, you should never ever do either. Which is exactly the opposite of what junior developers do, because juniors are taught all these “hopeless” OOP practices and they are taught to mindlessly follow them by the book. Then 10 years later (or like 50 years in the case of Uncle Bob) they realise that functional programming is just easier to maintain and more fun to work with because everything you need to know is happening right next to each other and not in some obscure service class deep in some ridiculous inheritance tree.
  • int_19h 2y ago
    The problem with repeating code in multiple places is that when you find a bug in said code, it won't actually be fixed in all the places where it needs to be fixed. For larger projects especially, it is usually a worthwhile tradeoff versus having to peel off some extra abstraction layers when reading the code. The problems usually start when people take this as an opportunity to go nuts on generalizing the abstraction right away - that is, instead of refactoring the common piece of code into a simple function, it becomes a generic class hierarchy to cover all conceivable future cases (but, somehow, rarely the actual future use case, should one arise in practice). Most of this is just cargo cult thinking. OOP is a valid tool on the belt, and it is genuinely good at modelling certain things - but one needs to understand why it is useful there to know when to reach for it and when to leave it alone. That is rarely taught well (if at all), though, and even if it is, it can be hard to grok without hands-on experience.