Difference between revisions of "Talk:2730: Code Lifespan"
(...my own comment.) |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
At least at a corporate level, I suspect this phenomenon has an extremely simple explanation. When your code is high-quality, people often won't even realize they are using and interacting with it, because it just does what it's supposed to. When your code is hackish, you and your coworkers will constantly find it breaking seemingly unrelated stuff, forcing them to go back to it over and over, trying to make it work, only to discover it breaks even more things when they try to fix it. | At least at a corporate level, I suspect this phenomenon has an extremely simple explanation. When your code is high-quality, people often won't even realize they are using and interacting with it, because it just does what it's supposed to. When your code is hackish, you and your coworkers will constantly find it breaking seemingly unrelated stuff, forcing them to go back to it over and over, trying to make it work, only to discover it breaks even more things when they try to fix it. | ||
<br />Your high-quality code is still interacting with those seemingly unrelated things, it's simply not breaking the unrelated things, so you don't notice it's interacting with the seemingly unrelated things.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.97|172.69.68.97]] 16:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC) | <br />Your high-quality code is still interacting with those seemingly unrelated things, it's simply not breaking the unrelated things, so you don't notice it's interacting with the seemingly unrelated things.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.97|172.69.68.97]] 16:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | This also reminds me of [[2347: Dependency]] where a single project made in 1990 has become the backbone of so many other applications. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.100|172.71.151.100]] 17:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 17:47, 27 January 2023
I'm not sure if the thesis in this comic is accurate. But if it is, my explanation would be that a person with a more spontaneous live-in-the-moment attitude might program stuff that is more interesting, than the stuff made by the person who is (maybe neurotically) obsessed with making clean code.
My own experience is that one loses the fun of programming something if the perfectionism plays to big of a role. 162.158.203.40 (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2023 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- The advice always given to me is "never let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough". Though I tend to bounce between being so obsessive, that I don't realise that I'm now gilding the lilly, or hastily kludging it because of the need for an immediate workaround, knowing that if it needs looking at again then I'll be doing it later anyway and that's when I'll get my gilding gear ready. (Hence why I'm 'always' being told that phrase. But I suspect that there really is no sweet spot between too little and too much, or at least no single keystroke at which I would earn universal praise for my finely balanced tenacity and moderation upon the handling of the issue. Always critics!) 172.70.86.28 17:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
At least at a corporate level, I suspect this phenomenon has an extremely simple explanation. When your code is high-quality, people often won't even realize they are using and interacting with it, because it just does what it's supposed to. When your code is hackish, you and your coworkers will constantly find it breaking seemingly unrelated stuff, forcing them to go back to it over and over, trying to make it work, only to discover it breaks even more things when they try to fix it.
Your high-quality code is still interacting with those seemingly unrelated things, it's simply not breaking the unrelated things, so you don't notice it's interacting with the seemingly unrelated things.172.69.68.97 16:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
This also reminds me of 2347: Dependency where a single project made in 1990 has become the backbone of so many other applications. 172.71.151.100 17:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
