5 ms·

Reducing software development practices down to these cute catchphrases is a bit disingenuous. If you're writing throwaway code for a client with loose constrai

by freyrs3 13y ago

Reducing software development practices down to these cute catchphrases is a bit disingenuous. If you're writing throwaway code for a client with loose constraints and a tight deadline you'll write code differently then you would when you expect to maintain a long term relationship with a client who expects a high degree of correctness. I'm tired of these trite articles espousing some cute mantra holds as if it's some universal property of software development.

Draiken 13y ago
Exactly. Specially with the chosen title. Almost all similar articles I read, are used as some kind of self justification to writing bad code and leaving it there forever. If you believe the software will fail (won't ever be changed/grow), do whatever you want with it. If you think it'll succeed, stack too many dirty hacks together and you're gonna pay for it later with tons of interest. Main problem is, too many times this goes "unnoticed", people just take longer and longer to do the same things, but people stay oblivious to the real causes of that technical debt.
- mattgreenrocks 13y ago
  > Almost all similar articles I read, are used as some kind of self justification Nerds (of which I am one) tend to be really good at rationalization. These articles serve as a sort of catharsis ("I probably could have done better, but I was really just moving fast and breaking things!"). Other times, these articles are written as a means of projecting identity (e.g. "I reject enterprise-y nonsense by refusing to doing any sort of analysis or design!") Both are exceedingly poor motives.
  - freyrs3 13y ago
    Nerds ( also one myself ) tend to suffer from the over-generalization fallacy. Whereby they think that their local experience generalizes to a much larger scope. For instance, If you read most of HN programming articles with the prefix "when writing code for a web startup" they make sense, if drop that prefix they stop making sense. It also helps to keep in mind that advice that holds in the startup world can be quite toxic when applied elsewhere in the industry.
    - mattgreenrocks 13y ago
      Definitely. I disregard most 'engineering' advice I read in HN threads for exactly this reason. Most of it falls into the "I don't believe it's an issue in my 1.5k LOC app, so it must not be real!"
danellis 13y ago
The worse thing is that he's saying "you shouldn't spend extra time to do the right thing", and then tries to justify that by giving examples of people doing the wrong thing. Nobody is calling spending weeks writing a caching layer for a 20-row database "elegant" or "best practice". That's a complete straw man.
- logicallee 13y ago
  I don't know. The whole ecosystem we live in (YC) seems to be about, "Your idea may be good, but mine exists." Basically, the same thing as he's saying.
  - mendicantB 13y ago
    I felt the same about the YC ecosystem, which is why I submitted this.
  - cloverich 13y ago
    Sort of. That just means they endorse an Agile approach - ship bare minimum features early, and continuously improve. Not ship bare minimum features early, and who cares about how its designed. The whole over-engineering argument is a straw man, because over-engineering is just as bad as under-engineering. Neither one is desirable in professionally written software.
  - mikgan 13y ago
    A lot of the time once you have a good understanding of some of some more mature practices it doesn't take any longer to do the 'right' thing.
- adamdavis 13y ago
  "Nobody is calling spending weeks writing a caching layer for a 20-row database "elegant" or "best practice" I don't disagree with your main points, but you might be surprised to hear some things that people will say and unnecessary optimizations they'll attempt...
- wtbob 13y ago
fit2rule 13y ago
>Reducing software development practices down to these cute catchphrases is a bit disingenuous. Its a bit like Scientology, but without the crazy. Oh no, wait .. there's plenty of crazy.
- freyrs3 13y ago
  Same idea, you reduce arguments down to these repeated definitive-sounding cliches that are held sacrosanct and impenetrable to dissent.
JackMorgan 13y ago
A while back I tried to add some clarity to the discussion. http://deliberate-software.com/quality-is-future-speed/ http://deliberate-software.com/quality-is-future-speed/
dj-wonk 13y ago
Meta comment: The article: (a) covers enough relevant topics (b) using rather ambiguous terminology (c) while offering sharp opinions (d) about a world of pain (e) that we all experience (f) but can never be solved in general This is not a bad formula for crafting a blog post that you want to get picked up via HN. It is also a great way to start a discussion that will never end.

by freyrs3 13y ago

Draiken 13y ago

Exactly. Specially with the chosen title. Almost all similar articles I read, are used as some kind of self justification to writing bad code and leaving it there forever. If you believe the software will fail (won't ever be changed/grow), do whatever you want with it. If you think it'll succeed, stack too many dirty hacks together and you're gonna pay for it later with tons of interest. Main problem is, too many times this goes "unnoticed", people just take longer and longer to do the same things, but people stay oblivious to the real causes of that technical debt.

mattgreenrocks 13y ago
> Almost all similar articles I read, are used as some kind of self justification Nerds (of which I am one) tend to be really good at rationalization. These articles serve as a sort of catharsis ("I probably could have done better, but I was really just moving fast and breaking things!"). Other times, these articles are written as a means of projecting identity (e.g. "I reject enterprise-y nonsense by refusing to doing any sort of analysis or design!") Both are exceedingly poor motives.
- freyrs3 13y ago
  Nerds ( also one myself ) tend to suffer from the over-generalization fallacy. Whereby they think that their local experience generalizes to a much larger scope. For instance, If you read most of HN programming articles with the prefix "when writing code for a web startup" they make sense, if drop that prefix they stop making sense. It also helps to keep in mind that advice that holds in the startup world can be quite toxic when applied elsewhere in the industry.
  - mattgreenrocks 13y ago
    Definitely. I disregard most 'engineering' advice I read in HN threads for exactly this reason. Most of it falls into the "I don't believe it's an issue in my 1.5k LOC app, so it must not be real!"

danellis 13y ago

The worse thing is that he's saying "you shouldn't spend extra time to do the right thing", and then tries to justify that by giving examples of people doing the wrong thing. Nobody is calling spending weeks writing a caching layer for a 20-row database "elegant" or "best practice". That's a complete straw man.

logicallee 13y ago
I don't know. The whole ecosystem we live in (YC) seems to be about, "Your idea may be good, but mine exists." Basically, the same thing as he's saying.
- mendicantB 13y ago
  I felt the same about the YC ecosystem, which is why I submitted this.
- cloverich 13y ago
  Sort of. That just means they endorse an Agile approach - ship bare minimum features early, and continuously improve. Not ship bare minimum features early, and who cares about how its designed. The whole over-engineering argument is a straw man, because over-engineering is just as bad as under-engineering. Neither one is desirable in professionally written software.
- mikgan 13y ago
  A lot of the time once you have a good understanding of some of some more mature practices it doesn't take any longer to do the 'right' thing.
adamdavis 13y ago
"Nobody is calling spending weeks writing a caching layer for a 20-row database "elegant" or "best practice" I don't disagree with your main points, but you might be surprised to hear some things that people will say and unnecessary optimizations they'll attempt...
wtbob 13y ago

fit2rule 13y ago

>Reducing software development practices down to these cute catchphrases is a bit disingenuous. Its a bit like Scientology, but without the crazy. Oh no, wait .. there's plenty of crazy.

freyrs3 13y ago
Same idea, you reduce arguments down to these repeated definitive-sounding cliches that are held sacrosanct and impenetrable to dissent.

JackMorgan 13y ago

A while back I tried to add some clarity to the discussion. http://deliberate-software.com/quality-is-future-speed/ http://deliberate-software.com/quality-is-future-speed/

dj-wonk 13y ago

Meta comment: The article: (a) covers enough relevant topics (b) using rather ambiguous terminology (c) while offering sharp opinions (d) about a world of pain (e) that we all experience (f) but can never be solved in general This is not a bad formula for crafting a blog post that you want to get picked up via HN. It is also a great way to start a discussion that will never end.