But you should probably touch it before all the dependencies are outdated. And before everyone who understands how to work with it has left. Especially if it happens to be core to the business.
:)
72I completely agree. I think "touching" is the right word. Don't rebuild it, update as needed and get familiar (if needed)
16had to completely replace a component in a massive project at my work recently because we forgor how it worked and had a newer different thing for it. it was so intertwined into that project that I practically had to do a ship of Theseus on it 😭😭😭😭
10Why would you touch your job security?
1
Absolutely untrue. Keep your shit up to date. If you have time, simplify code.
54There’s always opportunity for improvement.
2
looks at the startup scripts I just took from a 2h runtime to 15m
Guess I gotta revert those changes.
44I mean, runtimes can be a legit reason to say something's not working.
20But it does work. Eventually.
Really, I fixed it because we're doing an OS upgrade and I didn't want to wait 2h every time I spun up a new instance to test a change.
14that's the problem with the 'its working' argument.
if you hadn't touched the working code you might have missed the performance issue to begin with.
1
Well over a decade ago I remember a coworker would just go through the codebase and add his own coding style.
Instead of
if (predicate) {He would do
if ( predicate )I would always ask why he did it and he said, "well we don't have any coding standards so I'm going to do it" ... I replied, "there's things like unwritten rules and sticking to whatever's in the codebase makes it easy". I told the seniors and they chose not to do anything (everyone just merged into trunk) and they just left him for a while.
Then he turned rewrote built-in logical functions in code like this:
if (predicate || predicate) {Into code like this:
if ( or( predicate, predicate ) ) {This was C# and there was no Prettier back then.
Also, he would private every constructor and then create a static factory method.
Eventually the seniors told him to knock it off. All I said was that I initially tried telling them weeks ahead of time and now we got a mess on our hands.
22Hilarious but their fault for not making a standard. The guy was just taking the initiative.
17The correct initiative would have been to make a coding standard and get buy-in, not yolo unilaterally enforce your own idiosyncrasies.
5
The best part is that his "or" function changes the semantics of the code in a subtle and hard to find way. :D
10We have one of those situations at work. We're a small team, but one guy is kind of unilateral in his work style. He added a bunch of "interfaces" and "domain" modules in our python Django app. His idea seems to be like instead of doing Project.object.get(id=1) with the standard Django library, you'd do like import project_interface; project_interface.get_project(id=1). The "interface" then does some home grown stuff, and probably delegates to the Django library eventually. All of which to me seems unnecessary, "yo dawg" redundant, and error prone.
Also in some places he's returning like a dict instead of query set or other Django object, which is going to cause problems later.
All of those specifics aside, because I'm sure he has reasons for all of this, but it's annoying that he's been doing it unilaterally. Worse, he had a project proposal to make the entire codebase like this and it was shot down. And every time it comes up in code reviews he's like "well, I think this is good and we don't have a standard saying otherwise".
I started really putting my foot down in places I have clear code ownership, but it still turns into like 30 comment exchanges on the pr.
He also has his own import sorting. Which could be fine except he never shared it or put it in the ci pipeline. So no one agreed to sort and comment imports like this, it's only in files he touched, and when other people change imports the comments become lies.
We have a standards meeting next week and I am not looking forward to it. We've been friendly for years and worked together before, but somehow at this job it's just not a smooth time.
4
That's a good way of maximizing technical debt.
21This is actually not a good advice, from my experience. If we don't monitor, refactor, or improve the code, the software will rot, sooner or later. "Don't touch" doesn't mean we don't ever think about the code, but we make the conscious choice not to modify it.
20Yeah, I've worked with the leave it alone types. What do you get in return? Components of your system which haven't been updated in the last 20 years and still run .NET 3.5. They obviously never stopped working, but you have security concerns, worse performance (didn't matter much in that case) and when you actually need to touch them you're fucked.
Why? Because updating takes a lot of time (as things break with every major revision) and on top of that if you then decide not to update (yeah, same coworker..) then you have to code around age old standards and run into bugs that you can't even find on Stack Overflow, because people didn't have to solve those in the last 20 years.
16if it's stupid and it works, it's still stupid, and you've been lucky this far.
15Or you do the right thing re-write or refactor, apply the latest practice add some tests to it. This way you won't have a black box anymore. Who knows there might be a hidden bug there that might be a huge security issue and could bite you back in the future.
14i = 0x5f3759df - ( i >> 1 );
// what the fuck?
13Fast inverse square root?
3
I was mildly annoyed the other day when someone moved a works-fine function and reimplemented it with dropwhile. This apparently was a divisive idea.
Me: it worked fine. Don't reimplement it for no gains. Don't send people to somewhat esoteric parts of the standard library. No one on this team is going to know how that function works off the top of their head.
Them: it's in the standard library it's fair game. It still works.
12One benefit of using dropwhile is that (with a bit of practice) it can actually be easier to read than a for loop. All for loops look similar. You need to read the for loop line by line to understand what it really do.
With dropwhile (or map, filter and reduce), it’s immediately obvious it will drop all elements until a certain condition turns false.
4
“That sign can’t stop me because I can’t read!”
10I’m a big fan or refactoring and rewriting my code as often as I can. Not only does it keep my brain “on topic” but it allows me to make major improvements. Nothing will ever be perfect. Just try to leave it in a better state than it was before.
7If you know it works, you also know it well enough to touch it.
Almost everybody that says it is talking about something that doesn't work, and they don't know it.
And those two add-up to make any advice completely useless.
6Not useless at all, this is why there is so much shit code out there.
It full implies, document and test your fucking code people!
2
Fix it til it breaks.
6flipside: it needs to be fixed but the only person who understands it is OOO
5No, we must rewrite it in this fancy new framework that came out last week.
(/s if not obvious)
5Its ok to touch up code. If you have lots of notes, on what its supposed to do.. I learned this the hardway.
5if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
if it's still under-budget, break it carefully.
4Update: bug fixes and some performance enhancement.
4Don’t touch things unless you have a good reason to do so. And when you have a good reason, touch it exactly as much as you need - but never more.
4This week I am to propose two major redesigns to an external API and webpage on my rollercoaster of a project. Let's see this code monkey land a backflip :,)
4... said no programmer, ever. Especially not after hearing about a cool new feature in their favorite language or library that was just added in the newest unstable version!
3Man this would have been great to have read a day ago.
3Sorry I live by "if it ain't broke, I'll fix it"
3that's a challenge
3Found the junior dev that wants to refactor everything.
6
I accept the challenge
2Ice cold take: You don't have enough tests if you can't safely refactor on a whim.
A well-tested project should allow you to refactor arbitrarily. As long as all existing tests pass, rewritten code is at least functionally equivalent to the previous code. This allows for fearless performance rewrites, refactoring, and even complete redesigns of components.
In other words, the tests are more valuable than the code itself. The spec for the codebase proper should be defined by the tests. When the spec changes or grows, the tests should change or grow, and then the main codebase should be modified to pass all tests once again.
TL;DR TDD evades this issue entirely and is fantastic for larger and/or longer-term projects
2I don't care, you're not to use static!
2also applicable to "do not touch willie"
1Lousy Smarch weather
1The best debugger is a good night sleep.
1In German we say:
„Ein funktionierendes System nie anfassen!“
0"Ach du lieber! Das ist not eine boobie!"
1
