|
|
|
|
|
|
by jon-wood
932 days ago
|
|
|
This is an interesting perspective which I'm inclined to disagree with. There's little pleasure to be found in having to deal with a system that broke because it was badly designed or implemented, although I guess it means you've got a reasonably secure job for the time being. Being able to gradually refactor it can be fun sometimes I guess, but I'd still rather not have to. Your second category is more interesting to me - you're interpreting a system is hard to understand and work on as being made by super intelligent people. I would interpret that as a system that was badly designed, unless you're doing some new and revolutionary thing (you're probably not). A system that has been designed in such a way that only someone with deep knowledge of the thought process can work on it has been designed badly. I know this because I have in the past designed many such systems. Coming back to them a few years later even I hated myself for it, so I'm deeply sympathetic to the people who had to work on them who weren't me. Thankfully in most cases I got to task a few people with ripping out the system and replacing it with something better. |
|
|
I read it as the opposite. GP says that if a system is good, it needs no improvement, so there's no fun in refactoring and redesign.
And those good systems are easy to understand and work no, so when something breaks you can't blame it on the design. You can only blame yourself.