4 ms·

This could be formulated much better IMO but it's good that OP gave us this to check out and comment on. I'd simplify this to "commercial hat" and "hobbyist ha

This could be formulated much better IMO but it's good that OP gave us this to check out and comment on. I'd simplify this to "commercial hat" and "hobbyist hat", more or less, but there's another axis entirely and that's the hat OP kind of looks down on, namely "chef's hat". Because making code readable and maintainable also makes it suitable for teaching and onboarding juniors -- or any other teammate really. As a guy with 23 years in the profession I started getting sick of myself being a hobbyist at times so I just do whatever is needed for a code to work BUT I don't keep it together with spit and 5-year old duct tape; I also give it some of the "chef's hat" treatment. How much of the "chef" touch do you give it determines the readability and maintainability. And whether you or your employer care about those, well, this is where actual real-world nuance and spectrum come into play.

3vidence 2y ago
I'm not sure that distinction is completely fair. Can't say I have nearly as much time under my belt but I've still seen the full continuum of straight well tested, documented code down to hacked together nonsense all within the same commerical code base. I think to OP's point different code has different purposes commercial or not.
- pdimitar 2y ago
  I am not sure what you find unfair, not like I am polarizing anything. I too introduced nuance via the "chef's hat" amount of effort one is willing to introduce. I was also disagreeing with OP about their idea that polishing code is a waste time more often than not. That has been very far from the truth in my career. If you know what you are doing then "polishing" absolutely does bring value in the form of better velocity even as soon as one week in the future.
motorest 2y ago
> I'd simplify this to "commercial hat" and "hobbyist hat", (...) Your suggestion doesn't make sense, though. They mean nothing beyond disdaining code and convey nothing useful, whereas the article offers ways to classify different perspectives that are taken in highly professional settings. To help you understand what's being discussed, highly successful companies made it thanks to their founders opting to put on their MacGyver hat to roll out a MVP instead of opting to put a Captain's hat.
- pdimitar 2y ago
  No, I disagree that it doesn't make sense. I was mostly saying that the OP's "hats" are generally just various random points along the spectrum of "how much would you invest in the code". They are kinda arbitrary which is fine. I was mostly trying to reformulate their points and disagree with one of them.

3vidence 2y ago

I'm not sure that distinction is completely fair. Can't say I have nearly as much time under my belt but I've still seen the full continuum of straight well tested, documented code down to hacked together nonsense all within the same commerical code base. I think to OP's point different code has different purposes commercial or not.

pdimitar 2y ago
I am not sure what you find unfair, not like I am polarizing anything. I too introduced nuance via the "chef's hat" amount of effort one is willing to introduce. I was also disagreeing with OP about their idea that polishing code is a waste time more often than not. That has been very far from the truth in my career. If you know what you are doing then "polishing" absolutely does bring value in the form of better velocity even as soon as one week in the future.

motorest 2y ago

> I'd simplify this to "commercial hat" and "hobbyist hat", (...) Your suggestion doesn't make sense, though. They mean nothing beyond disdaining code and convey nothing useful, whereas the article offers ways to classify different perspectives that are taken in highly professional settings. To help you understand what's being discussed, highly successful companies made it thanks to their founders opting to put on their MacGyver hat to roll out a MVP instead of opting to put a Captain's hat.

pdimitar 2y ago
No, I disagree that it doesn't make sense. I was mostly saying that the OP's "hats" are generally just various random points along the spectrum of "how much would you invest in the code". They are kinda arbitrary which is fine. I was mostly trying to reformulate their points and disagree with one of them.