[mbrodersen]

I really think this list is too low level. What matters a lot more is how the data structures and architecture is designed. I can easily imagine a nightmare of a system that follows all the rules in the list. And I have worked on great solid maintainable code that didn’t follow that list at all. Also, semantic versioning doesn’t work. Developers typically have no clue whether a small change might make an update incompatible. Fixing a bug might make your code incompatible without you knowing it for example (since software using your code has fixes to fix your bug).

[usrbinbash]

Basics matter.

Let's say the architecture of a house is beautiful, and its a marvel of structural engineering, but; If the floorplan is unintuitive, the stairwells alternate between 3 different parts of the building each floor, none of the rooms are labeled, all the access shafts are of different size, the original architect didn't even keep a copy of a blueprint, and some rooms are simply blocked off with a sign on the bricks saying "maybe need that later"...

...then the guy who has to rewire the cables in the damn thing later is gonna have a bad day, and the guy who has to pay him for all the extra hours is not going to be happy either.

[mbrodersen]

Most of the issues you are discussing are architectual issus. Architecture is not just how the house looks. An architecture also decides on the floor plan, staircases etc. Also, houses are not a good anology for software. So I caution against drawing any conclusions from your perception on how houses are constructed and the building industry in general.

[usrbinbash]

Houses are a great analogy, especially when it comes to my argument about pointless abstractions.

A house where the floorplan is decided before the needs of the tenants are even clear, will likely have to be reshaped later. The same happens in overarchitectured codebases, eg. a dependency injection for some subsystem set up which will never have more than one type to depend on, making the code less obvious, less readable, and harder to maintain.

[mbrodersen]

> pointless abstractions

Of course anything that is "pointless" is indeed pointless. And "great abstractions" are indeed great. What's your point? And what has that got to do with your origial low level list?

> A house where the floorplan is decided before the needs of the tenants are even clear, will likely have to be reshaped later

Yes obviously. And a well thought out floorplan that takes into account the needs of the tenants is great. Again, what's your point? And what does that have to do with your original low level list?

[usrbinbash]

My point is: "Basics matter, Readbility counts."

And how is my list "low level"? It concerns both "low level" issues like missing comments or inconsistent naming, and "high level" architectural problems, like introducing pointless abstractions.

Both are code smells , and thus a valid answer to the topic.