[x1f604]

Do people understand code by line-by-line reverse-engineering what the code is doing, or do they understand it by relating it to what they've written before?

If the latter is the case, then you get better at reading code by writing code. Writing lots of code puts those code-patterns into your long term memory, and then when you see those code-patterns again you'll recognize them.

For system design too - if you've designed lots of systems yourself, then when you see a new system, you'll be able to relate it to the systems that you've designed before.

So maybe building greenfield projects also makes you better at maintaining existing projects?

It'd be great if someone could point me to some existing literature on this topic. I've looked around and can't find any.

[tivert]

> So maybe building greenfield projects also makes you better at maintaining existing projects?

I think it does, because it builds a higher-level sense of how something "could" or "should" be and familiarity with thinking at the system level.

I've had a lot of problems with people who (seemingly) only have experience maintaining projects. They seem to have a tendency to focus narrowly on "fixing" a bug close to its source, and often lack understanding of a lot of fundamental technologies (because they only attend to things that have broken), and get stuck by a kind streetlight fallacy where they fix things in more familiar areas. The end result is ugly kludges and whack-a-mole bugs where a superficial "fix" in one area causes a new bug to pop up in another.

[ye-olde-sysrq]

>> So maybe building greenfield projects also makes you better at maintaining existing projects?

Only to an extent, i think.

> I've had a lot of problems with people who (seemingly) only have experience maintaining projects.

And similarly I've had problems with people who (seemingly) only have experience with starting a new project and then simultaneously over-engineering and piling on tech debt.

I think "i've never bootstrapped a project before" is easier to cure than "I don't have a good sense of what's expensive vs what's cheap tech debt."

Some tech debt is basically 0% interest. Was this small hack bad? Yeah. Will it need to be fixed, eventually? Yes, for sure. But does it compound every day, or does it just sit there being a little yucky? Very easy to determine in hindsight. Very hard to predict as you write the hack. The end result being the simultaneity in my example. People will over-engineer things that won't end up being problems and under-engineer things that will turn out to require compounding hacks and it would've been cheaper to just get it right the first time.

[65a]

This. I've worked in both greenfield and brownfield areas. The chief failuremode of greenfield is that it works, but it is unscalable and shoddily done. The chief failuremode of brownfield is some kind of feature cardinality explosion that becomes impossible to maintain after some critical juncture. Reading between the lines, they're sort of the same failure mode happening at different times, but both driven by results-driven-programming rather than architecture.

[tivert]

>> I've had a lot of problems with people who (seemingly) only have experience maintaining projects.

> And similarly I've had problems with people who (seemingly) only have experience with starting a new project and then simultaneously over-engineering and piling on tech debt.

The best thing is to build a greenfield project and then maintain it for several years, fix your mistakes, then do the same thing on a new project again (including the maintenance).

You really need the full spectrum of experience, and put yourself in the shoes of the future maintainer when you're building something new.

[rvba]

There are lots of greenfield-only programmers who build something (by glueing stuff together), then they proceed to ship their barely working software to get that promotion / bonus and they run away to the next project

They never have to maintain anything, some poor soul has to fix the broken software.

They also dont even know what mistakes they made, since they arent there to solve it.

[hinkley]

I think there’s something to be said for taking a job on a late stage project early in your career, participating in RCA analysis of all of the problems, and then picturing yourself in the room when those decisions are made and asking if you would have made the same decisions or better ones. Then work next on a greenfield project to test your theories out and adjust/grow.

I never felt like I had 1 year of experience 5 times because I moved between several kinds of projects at different lifecycle phases and with different constraints, and drew lots of parallels between them. At the end of five years I had project histories in my brain that spanned more than ten years. And got jobs that should have gone to someone with 8 years’ experience. I do not think this was a coincidence.

[fatnoah]

I haven't had to do it a lot, but in previous cases where I came into a codebase blind and had to fix bugs or figure out what's going on, I've always started by mapping the flow first and then digging into the details of what's going on. When looking at the flow, I go breadth-first through everything and then dig in from there.

I maintain two major maps, which are what is the code logically trying to do, but also what exactly it's doing. (i.e. Sanitize inputs, check error conditions, do work, return result as a logical model and then "ensure foo is < 0 and > -10" etc. as the specific checks).

[darkhorse222]

>If the latter is the case, then you get better at reading code by writing code. Writing lots of code puts those code-patterns into your long term memory, and then when you see those code-patterns again you'll recognize them.

Let's hope what you write the first time is a good practice.