I still find coding a mentally exhausting task and maybe even more now that I am getting older. I find it harder to concentrate and I am more easily distracted. It often takes me time to get in the right mood to code. I guess my memory skills are probably also getting worse.
I suffer a lot from procrastination and I think one of the reasons is that I find it still a hard to write code. Which most of the time is not coding but reading and trying to understand code. And thinking about all the alternative ways to solve a problem. I often find myself struggling to commit my changes doubting whether my changes are good.
I also still find myself looking up the order of the parameters of standard C library functions that I have used over 30 years. I am dyslectic and struggle to remember facts. I also still find myself making stupid Boolean logic coding errors and make one-off mistakes. I still find myself stepping through loops with the debugger just to see if I did not make a stupid mistake.
It still often takes me more time to solve an issue than I had thought it would take me. There are days when I leave the office feeling that I have accomplished nothing because I have not committed any working code.
> I still find coding a mentally exhausting task and maybe even more now that I am getting older
If it helps, we're at the dawn of AI assisted development. That will take a lot of the cognitive burden, allowing us to focus on the "what" more than the "how"
Also, software is ultimately written by humans, for humans. A very overlooked thing in many circles. It seems so simple, but folks off in the deeply technical universe of engineering should remember it.
Maybe this is why infrastructure as code feels so obtuse to me, there isn't many opportunities to explain yourself in the code and so most of the communication is done in the docs.
Perhaps there is an opportunity for a more natural language approach to infrastructure as code, but I am not sure how far you can take that since the reality is still a lot of arbitrary delcarations.
“It is very difficult to talk of the operations of the mind with perfect propriety and exactness; because common language has seldom made any very nice distinctions among them, but has generally call’d by the same term all such as nearly resemble each other. And as this is a source almost inevitable of obscurity and confusion in the author; so it may frequently give rise to doubts and objections in the reader, which otherwise he wou’d never have dream’d of.”
––A Treatise of Human Nature, by David Hume, pg. 76
I doubt a "natural language" approach would work; the natural language for the domain has to be very precise. Just like the "natural language" for software has to be similar to either C or LISP. You are giving precise technical instructions which will be run by a machine.
"Hey, just spin up a server with enough capacity, alright?" Yes, sure. Please define capacity.
Those definitions are usually in the docs, which is why the code makes so many references to the docs.
Many infra-as-code systems allow you to add comments to the docs, which (if done well) can really help.
And infra-as-code is much superior to infra-as-let's-click-on-the-gui-until-it-works' Yes, it is hard to read (I know, I do it for a living). But at least you have a document which describes the infra!
I think a lot of the infrastructure-as-code motivation comes from struggling with documentation. At least it provides a unambiguous source of truth which is going to be correct. Understanding it and it’s quirks can be tedious but it’s better than port scanning and guessing hostnames to figure out what infrastructure exists.
I've never seen it done in infrastructure as code files, but I probably would if I were writing it. Or I'd at least include some explanation in the readme.
I do it all the time in YAML config and HCL, especially stuff which is not obvious. That's the main benefit of YAML over JSON, to be able to communicate to human readers through comments.
Some stuff, like which CIDRs are necessary for which connection, are only obvious in the moment you write it, not 1 or 2 years later or for another person who joins your project next week.
Software is written by humans for solving a new problem with new constraints and requirements. Code being understandable to other humans is a desirable side-effect, but in no way primary. Some problems are inherently hard and few humans have the capacity to reason about them, no matter how nicely-formatted, modularised and linted your code is.
All the more reason not to make it any more complicated than necessary (even if it's in the expense of some code elegance). Not just for other people, but also for the future you, coming to maintain this. Going back to your code after three years, and someone else approaching the code for the first time are not that much different.
Also this is why I love automation, like scripts for everything. It's like a memo to your future self, with the side benefit of sparing you menial work. I keep even single one liner commands as their own shell scripts with a descriptive name.
Try to read and understand everything your write. If it doesn't click immediately or needs too much outside context or "working memory", make it simpler. Failing that, elaborate in comments.
Sometimes it has to be complicated. Complication in one area (usually infrastructure code) enables simplicity in other areas (usually application code). An OS memory manager deals with the complexity of page management, so as to present the nice abstraction of an orderly address space to applications. An SQL query optimiser is complex in order to allow dumb and "understandable" queries from applications.
It isn’t just about code. It’s about the software’s user. Humans and the programming is one part. But the software is for people. The problems being solved are for people. It is humans all the way down. In this way I view software as a very humanistic domain. That is why the theme of communication angle resonates with me so much. Agile is misused a lot but for goodness sake, talk to your users. Even if your user is just you.
This is exactly the thinking I see people trapped in and was pointing out. Focused on solving the engineering problems, not the humans that come before and after the problem (both end users and developers). We know there are hard things in engineering and problem solving ain’t easy. I think in an absolute sense you are right, but in a practical sense, it is more than a desirable side effect. Code once written and solving a problem can live on for a very ling time.
The hardest thing these days is trying to think of names. Taking a concept and reducing it to one or two words that explain what it does, because to have a name that doesn't quite describe it, just, feels wrong.
I spend more time on thesaurus and dictionary sites than I did/do on places like planetsourcecode and stackoverflow.
There’s definitely a little truth to that, but the good ones are also more conscious over time of assumptions and dependencies and how to think about code and what to do and what not to do - and they will talk to you about it at length if you ask them. Half the problem is the young ones frequently don’t ask or listen. I was there once, young and full of pride and energy and not listening, and these days watch younger programmers nod their heads and then proceed to ignore any advice, even answers to their own questions. I don’t see unconscious competence causing many problems, aside from occasional impatience when working with someone who’s too green (or occasionally a bit stubborn about learning certain things.) Also the best older programmers will tell you to stop trying to be tricky & clever, they advocate learning how to write straightforward boring code, and it still takes programming for a couple decades yourself for that advice to sink in. Lawrence Kesteloot wrote a great piece about why this happens (also find other great programming advice sprinkled around his site): https://www.teamten.com/lawrence/writings/norris-numbers.htm...
The thing I see even more with seasoned programmers over time is conscious incompetence. We all start as unconscious incompetence, we all have no idea how much there is to learn, and people tend to assume that you can learn most of what is known in a career or lifetime. Then you learn a lot and grow older, and you find out that the visible bounds of what you don’t know grows much, much faster than the bounds of what you do know. The more you learn and the more you practice, the more you discover how very little you know. (BTW I first heard this from a retiring geophysicist, and have just noticed that it fits every great programmer I’ve worked with, as well as my own experience.)
I recommend any senior engineer look for opportunities to mentor, it keeps your awareness sharp and you may even encounter some unique perspectives that challenge your current model.
I have been surprised/hurt at the lack of these opportunities. I make myself very available to interns, sometimes, we stumble on great discussions, but they insist on doing it all on their own. People closer to my cohort often reach out for mentoring. I don’t know if it’s an ageism thing, or I’m just an asshole and I can’t see it, or what. I’ve decided to quit trying so hard to “give to the following generation”. I’m glad to share, but it’s not worth my own sense of “not mattering anymore.”
Other industries definitely have it better in regards to mentorship and passing the torch on so to speak. I've not once seen an apprenticeship style program for software developers, even though it's the perfect industry for it. There's not really a graceful ageing out process for the industry either. It seems the only pathways are moving up into management. At that point, often your software engineering knowledge gets put to the side, and new developers don't get access to it.
I've worked a few times with people I thought were just leadership jockeys their whole career, and then it turns out they were actually software developers for 20 years prior to that. They had all pretty much washed their hands of software, and their attitude was "Well, what would I know now. Not really my scene anymore.". That's a lot of experience thrown out the window.
Or we realized that pretty code, or whatever is the current fad in how to write code, doesn't matter if it isn't actually solving the problem that the end users care about.
A problem that one will only properly learn about by communicating with other humans, understanding their expectations, skillset and most relevant, what their business domain is all about.
I suffer a lot from procrastination and I think one of the reasons is that I find it still a hard to write code. Which most of the time is not coding but reading and trying to understand code. And thinking about all the alternative ways to solve a problem. I often find myself struggling to commit my changes doubting whether my changes are good.
I also still find myself looking up the order of the parameters of standard C library functions that I have used over 30 years. I am dyslectic and struggle to remember facts. I also still find myself making stupid Boolean logic coding errors and make one-off mistakes. I still find myself stepping through loops with the debugger just to see if I did not make a stupid mistake.
It still often takes me more time to solve an issue than I had thought it would take me. There are days when I leave the office feeling that I have accomplished nothing because I have not committed any working code.