Software engineers hate code.
www.dancowell.com
This is the best-kept secret of the software engineering profession: engineers hate code. Especially code written by other people. It's why they love working on greenfield projects so much. No code, no maintenance, no headaches! Ever wondered why microservices took off in teams of all sizes? A microservice architecture is
  • walkwalkwalkwalk@feddit.ukEnglish
    21·
    1 year ago

    I really like debugging and unravelling old fucked up overcomplicated codebases. I feel like it’s one of the most long term keeps-on-improving-over-decades skills in programming alongside architecture

  • computertoucher5000@programming.devEnglish
    16·
    1 year ago

    I’ve grown to love code even more later in life, even other people’s code.

    You know what I hate?

    Coding ceremonies (formerly known as “meetings”) that produce poorly defined/badly written acceptance criteria for code.

    • Ethan@programming.devEnglish
      7·
      1 year ago

      One of my problems is that I’ve gotten so practiced at reading code that my standards for “this is readable, it doesn’t need much commenting” are much lower than those of the other developers I work with. I’ve had to recalibrate from “Will I be able to understand this six months from now?” to “Will I need to explain this in the review?”

    • canpolat@programming.devOPEnglish
      15·
      1 year ago

      Good code is code that is easier to change, and microservices are that by design. No wonder microservices end up being better code.

      Microservices architecture by itself doesn’t guarantee making anything better. Making services smaller doesn’t automatically make easy-to-understand code. That’s why a lot of companies that didn’t pay attention to what they are doing went from monolithic architecture to “distributed big ball of mud” or “distributed monolith”. Just like any other architecture pattern, for microservices to work, the team needs to make conscious decisions to overcome the challenges specific to their architecture.

        • canpolat@programming.devOPEnglish
          3·
          1 year ago

          What microservices offers is loosely coupled services with very limited responsibilities and can be replaced easily and without any impact on a running service.

          We only get this if we do microservices correctly. That’s more or less the whole point of my comment. In many cases, teams rush into splitting their monolith into smaller chunks and call it a day. Without proper monitoring, orchestration/choreography, service boundaries, tooling, etc. microservices will drag a team into territories where they will lose control.

          Unless you somehow believe that the same people writing both a monolith and microservices would opt to write spaghetti code […]

          No, I don’t believe that. However, I also don’t believe people who write spaghetti code will start writing better code just because now they are writing smaller components. If the team has good coding hygiene, they will produce good code whether it’s monolith or microservices. But you have a point. If we are talking about components that are 200LoC, it’s more difficult to produce spaghetti (or easier to recover from it). I’m not sure that’s the norm, though.

          As a final note: I’m not saying microservices are bad, or monolith is better than microservices. I’m just trying to introduce some nuance. I have been part of a microservices transformation and I think it was successful. But we met with many challenges along the way that were not immediately obvious from the beginning. To quote one of the pioneers of microservices architecture:

          Don’t think of adopting microservices as flipping a switch; think about it as turning a dial. As you turn that dial, and have more services, you’ll hopefully have more opportunity to get the good stuff out of microservices. But as you turn up that dial, you’ll hit different pain points as you go. (Sam Newman, Monolith To Microservices)

  • catch22@programming.devEnglish
    6·
    1 year ago

    If the code is written well, it can save a bunch of time and provide a great forum for learning new techniques. Otherwise, if it’s written poorly yes I hate it. Like others have state here the title is an over generalization.

  • Ethan@programming.devEnglish
    6·
    1 year ago

    Senior engineers have learned through hard-won experience that writing code is the ultimate diminishing return.

    I feel seen. That entire section is absolute gold.

  • stilgar [he/him] @infosec.pubEnglish
    5·
    1 year ago

    Great post! We solve far too many problems (many of them are very much in the nice-to-have category) with our systems at my work, the systems get huge and difficult to change or maintain. I’m on a constant campaign to stop people building things we don’t need, I’m definitely filling my senior role lol.

  • Blackthorn@programming.devEnglish
    4·
    1 year ago

    Oh man, I hate code reviews with the strength of a thousand suns. In the enterprise world, there are so many constraints and conventions that reading other people code is even more boring than it should be. It’s even worse when you LGTM it and your colleagues “accuse” you of not having read it with attention because “I can’t believe you don’t have any comment on my code”.

    • ???@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      Well, if you don’t even have any comments at all, neither good nor bad, then “LGTM” doesn’t ever really translate to "I have read all your code and it’s wonderfule/okay enough to pass"…

      To me, having worked as a developer for some years now, it means “don’t got no time to look into your codes, so here’s a stamp of approval to send you along your way, knowing too well that you expected me to look into your code but I didn’t”

      My point being, if you want to say you read all the code and it’s fine, maybe refrain from using “LGTM”, which is the universal sign of malicious compliance/not caring.