Myths about Coding Craftsmanship part 2
- by tom
Myth 3: The source of all bad code is inept developers and stupid people When you review code is this what you assume? Shame on you. You are probably making assumptions in your code if you are assuming so much already. Bad code can be the result of any number of causes including but not limited to using dated techniques (like boxing when generics are available), not following standards (“look how he does the spacing between arguments!” or “did he really just name that variable ‘bln_Hello_Cats’?”), being redundant, using properties, methods, or objects in a novel way (like switching on button.Text between “Hello World” and “Hello World “ //clever use of space character… sigh), not following the SOLID principals, hacking around assumptions made in earlier iterations / hacking in features that should be worked into the overall design. The first two issues, while annoying are pretty easy to spot and can be fixed so easily. If your coding team is made up of experienced professionals who are passionate about staying current then these shouldn’t be happening. If you work with a variety of skills, backgrounds, and experience then there will be some of this stuff going on. If you have an opportunity to mentor such a developer who is receptive to constructive criticism don’t be a jerk; help them and the codebase will improve. A little patience can improve the codebase, your work environment, and even your perspective. The novelty and redundancy I have encountered has often been the use of creativity when language knowledge was perceived as unavailable or too time consuming. When developers learn on the job you get a lot of this. Rather than going to MSDN developers will use what they know. Depending on the constraints of their assignment hacking together what they know may seem quite practical. This was not stupid though I often wonder how much time is actually “saved” by hacking. These issues are often harder to untangle if we ever do. They can also grow out of control as we write hack after hack to make it work and get back to some development that is satisfying. Hacking upon an existing hack is what I call “feeding the monster”. Code monsters are anti-patterns and hacks gone wild. The reason code monsters continue to get bigger is that they keep growing in scope, touching more and more of the application. This is not the result of dumb developers. It is probably the result of avoiding design, not taking the time to understand the problems or anticipate or communicate the vision of the product. If our developers don’t understand the purpose of a feature or product how do we expect potential customers to do so? Forethought and organization are often what is missing from bad code. Developers who do not use the SOLID principals should be encouraged to learn these principals and be given guidance on how to apply them. The time “saved” by giving hackers room to hack will be made up for and then some. Not as technical debt but as shoddy work that if not replaced will be struggled with again and again. Bad code is not the result of dumb developers (usually) it is the result of trying to do too much without the proper resources and neglecting the right thing that needs doing with the first thoughtless thing that comes into our heads. Object oriented code is all about relationships between objects. Coders who believe their coworkers are all fools tend to write objects that are difficult to work with, not eager to explain themselves, and perform erratically and irrationally. If you constantly find you are surrounded by idiots you may want to ask yourself if you are being unreasonable, if you are being closed minded, of if you have chosen the right profession. Opening your mind up to the idea that you probably work with rational, well-intentioned people will probably make you a better coder and it might even make you less grumpy. If you are surrounded by jerks who do not engage in the exchange of ideas who do not care about their customers or the durability of the code you are building together then I suggest you find a new place to work. Myth 4: Customers don’t care about “beautiful” code Craftsmanship is customer focused because it means that the job was done right, the product will withstand the abuse, modifications, and scrutiny of our customers. Users can appreciate a predictable timeline for a release, a product delivered on time and on budget, a feature set that does not interfere with the task(s) it is supporting, quick turnarounds on exception messages, self healing issues, and less issues. These are all hindered by skimping on craftsmanship. When we write data access and when we write reusable code. What do you think? Does bad code come primarily from low IQ individuals? Do customers care about beautiful code?
