|
|
|
|
|
|
by gurkendoktor
3051 days ago
|
|
|
I just left a project after I was unable to make peace with being the cleanup guy for an endless, never-improving stream of mediocre code. I am convinced that it's faster to write solid code in the first place. Once there are two or more interacting layers of code, it gets really hard for the refactoring to catch up. If you fix a bug in a basic layer, the leaves of the codebase break. If you fix a bug in the leaves, you never get to refactor the core. If you want to stop the world and refactor everything at once, you get in the way of your quicker counterpart. Or think of a multithreaded codebase without any synchronization. It definitely works well enough for demoing an "almost finished" product, but cleaning it up requires a lot of time and can introduce temporary regressions (deadlocks) that are worse than the bugs that the cleanup is supposed to solve (very spurious data corruption). It's a bit like the bullshit asymmetry: https://twitter.com/ziobrando/status/289635060758507521 Ruby on Rails (from the OP) makes it easy to build many kinds of maintenance deathtraps. |
|
|