4 ms·

I don't have a real critique because I don't have that many years in a codebase the size of OP (just 2). But I struggle with the advice to not try and make a cl

I don't have a real critique because I don't have that many years in a codebase the size of OP (just 2). But I struggle with the advice to not try and make a clean section of the code base that doesn't depend on the rest of the application. Isn't part of good engineering trying to reduce your dependencies, even on yourself? In a latter part of the post, OP says to be careful tweaking existing code, because it can have unforeseen consequences. Isn't this the problem that having deep vertical slices of functionality tries to solve? High cohesion in that related code is grouped together, and low coupling in that you can add new code to your feature or modify it without worrying about breaking everyone else's code. Does this high cohesion and low coupling just not really work at the scale that OP is talking about?

gleenn 2y ago
It's one thing to reduce dependency and another to have reduced consistency. If you have 10 web routes and 1 behaves differently, it doesn't matter if the code is cross coupled or not, it matters if it behaves similarly. Does it return the same status codes on error? Does it always return JSON with error messages inside? Do you auth the same way? The implementation can be wholly separate but end users will notice because logic on their side now has to special-case your 11th endpoint because you returned HTTP 20x instead of 40x on error. Or when you realize that you want to refactor the code to DRY it (Don't Repeat Yourself), now you can't reduce all the duplication because you have bespoke parts.
mbivert 2y ago
I think the gist of it is humility: as a newcomer, you don't really know what's out there and why, and there are often good reasons for things to be how they are. Not always, but often enough for avoiding being too original to be favored. This doesn't imply relinquishing on "good engineering habits" either. Now, once you have a deeper understanding of the codebase, you'll know when and why to break away from existing patterns, but in the beginning phase, it's a good habit to start by learning carefully how things are designed and why.
Salgat 2y ago
Consistency makes code predictable and reduces mental overhead. It doesn't mean you have to write it poorly like the rest of the codebase, but it does mean using the same general practices as the rest of the codebase. Think of it like using knockoff legos vs the real thing. They both work interchangeably which makes it easy to use them together, but you'd prefer to use the nicer lego pieces as much as possible in your builds because the material is higher quality, tighter tolerances, just overall works better even if it's the same shape as the knockoff pieces.
mrkeen 2y ago
Nope, you've got it. Code-consistency is a property just like any other property, e.g. correctness, efficiency, testability, modifiability, verifiability, platform-agnosticism. Does it beat any of the examples I happened to list? Not a chance. > worrying about breaking everyone else's code You already said it, but just to expand: if you already have feature A, you might succeed in plumbing feature B through feature A's guts. And so on with feature C and D. But now you can't change any of them in isolation. When you try to fix up the plumbing, you'll now break 4 features at once.
Cthulhu_ 2y ago
These are two different concepts though; reducing dependencies is good, but you can have minimal dependencies AND have the code look / feel / behave like the rest of the codebase. Always remember, it's not your code. Assume someone else will need to read / maintain it. Thousands might. You might have made the perfect section of code, then get an offer you can't refuse or get hit by a bus.

gleenn 2y ago

It's one thing to reduce dependency and another to have reduced consistency. If you have 10 web routes and 1 behaves differently, it doesn't matter if the code is cross coupled or not, it matters if it behaves similarly. Does it return the same status codes on error? Does it always return JSON with error messages inside? Do you auth the same way? The implementation can be wholly separate but end users will notice because logic on their side now has to special-case your 11th endpoint because you returned HTTP 20x instead of 40x on error. Or when you realize that you want to refactor the code to DRY it (Don't Repeat Yourself), now you can't reduce all the duplication because you have bespoke parts.

mbivert 2y ago

I think the gist of it is humility: as a newcomer, you don't really know what's out there and why, and there are often good reasons for things to be how they are. Not always, but often enough for avoiding being too original to be favored. This doesn't imply relinquishing on "good engineering habits" either. Now, once you have a deeper understanding of the codebase, you'll know when and why to break away from existing patterns, but in the beginning phase, it's a good habit to start by learning carefully how things are designed and why.

Salgat 2y ago

Consistency makes code predictable and reduces mental overhead. It doesn't mean you have to write it poorly like the rest of the codebase, but it does mean using the same general practices as the rest of the codebase. Think of it like using knockoff legos vs the real thing. They both work interchangeably which makes it easy to use them together, but you'd prefer to use the nicer lego pieces as much as possible in your builds because the material is higher quality, tighter tolerances, just overall works better even if it's the same shape as the knockoff pieces.

mrkeen 2y ago

Nope, you've got it. Code-consistency is a property just like any other property, e.g. correctness, efficiency, testability, modifiability, verifiability, platform-agnosticism. Does it beat any of the examples I happened to list? Not a chance. > worrying about breaking everyone else's code You already said it, but just to expand: if you already have feature A, you might succeed in plumbing feature B through feature A's guts. And so on with feature C and D. But now you can't change any of them in isolation. When you try to fix up the plumbing, you'll now break 4 features at once.

Cthulhu_ 2y ago

These are two different concepts though; reducing dependencies is good, but you can have minimal dependencies AND have the code look / feel / behave like the rest of the codebase. Always remember, it's not your code. Assume someone else will need to read / maintain it. Thousands might. You might have made the perfect section of code, then get an offer you can't refuse or get hit by a bus.