this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
77 points (100.0% liked)

Programming

13376 readers
1 users here now

All things programming and coding related. Subcommunity of Technology.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Damn right. I care about getting features in the hands of my users. If code quality helps with that, if type script helps with that, I’m all in favor.

But the moment I care about code quality for its own sake you need to sack my ass like yesterday.

[–] eltimablo@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

What an utterly blind, self-centered view. Write good, readable code so you can actually maintain it and so your coworkers don't want to kill you.

[–] vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What an utterly blind, self-centered view.

This is a really surprising retort.

In the end, the only thing that has value is what ends up in the user’s hands. The rest is only a means to an end, in the very best case.

This is not a controversial take in professional software development.

What is self centered and self absorbed is putting misguided notions of “craftsmanship” and maintainability over business needs.

[–] eltimablo@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

If you can't see that writing readable code is part of the means to that end, I don't know what to tell you. If nobody can maintain the codebase because it's a mess of spaghetti logic and 20-deep dependency trees (I'm looking at you, every JavaScript project I've ever seen), the end product is going to suffer while also making every single engineer working on it want to leave.

This is not a controversial take in professional software development.

Funny, it sure seems like "maintainability should not be a priority" is a pretty controversial take to me.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)