I don’t care, you’re not to use static!
But you should probably touch it before all the dependencies are outdated. And before everyone who understands how to work with it has left. Especially if it happens to be core to the business.
:)
… said no programmer, ever. Especially not after hearing about a cool new feature in their favorite language or library that was just added in the newest unstable version!
That’s a good way of maximizing technical debt.
This is actually not a good advice, from my experience. If we don’t monitor, refactor, or improve the code, the software will rot, sooner or later. “Don’t touch” doesn’t mean we don’t ever think about the code, but we make the conscious choice not to modify it.
Well over a decade ago I remember a coworker would just go through the codebase and add his own coding style.
Instead of
if (predicate) {He would do
if ( predicate )I would always ask why he did it and he said, “well we don’t have any coding standards so I’m going to do it” … I replied, “there’s things like unwritten rules and sticking to whatever’s in the codebase makes it easy”. I told the seniors and they chose not to do anything (everyone just merged into trunk) and they just left him for a while.
Then he turned rewrote built-in logical functions in code like this:
if (predicate || predicate) {Into code like this:
if ( or( predicate, predicate ) ) {This was C# and there was no Prettier back then.
Also, he would private every constructor and then create a static factory method.
Eventually the seniors told him to knock it off. All I said was that I initially tried telling them weeks ahead of time and now we got a mess on our hands.
The best part is that his “or” function changes the semantics of the code in a subtle and hard to find way. :D
looks at the startup scripts I just took from a 2h runtime to 15m
Guess I gotta revert those changes.
Its ok to touch up code. If you have lots of notes, on what its supposed to do… I learned this the hardway.
I was mildly annoyed the other day when someone moved a works-fine function and reimplemented it with dropwhile. This apparently was a divisive idea.
Me: it worked fine. Don’t reimplement it for no gains. Don’t send people to somewhat esoteric parts of the standard library. No one on this team is going to know how that function works off the top of their head.
Them: it’s in the standard library it’s fair game. It still works.
One benefit of using dropwhile is that (with a bit of practice) it can actually be easier to read than a for loop. All for loops look similar. You need to read the for loop line by line to understand what it really do.
With dropwhile (or map, filter and reduce), it’s immediately obvious it will drop all elements until a certain condition turns false.
if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
if it’s still under-budget, break it carefully.
In German we say:
„Ein funktionierendes System nie anfassen!“
flipside: it needs to be fixed but the only person who understands it is OOO
Yeah, I’ve worked with the leave it alone types. What do you get in return? Components of your system which haven’t been updated in the last 20 years and still run .NET 3.5. They obviously never stopped working, but you have security concerns, worse performance (didn’t matter much in that case) and when you actually need to touch them you’re fucked.
Why? Because updating takes a lot of time (as things break with every major revision) and on top of that if you then decide not to update (yeah, same coworker…) then you have to code around age old standards and run into bugs that you can’t even find on Stack Overflow, because people didn’t have to solve those in the last 20 years.
Don’t touch things unless you have a good reason to do so. And when you have a good reason, touch it exactly as much as you need - but never more.
I’m a big fan or refactoring and rewriting my code as often as I can. Not only does it keep my brain “on topic” but it allows me to make major improvements. Nothing will ever be perfect. Just try to leave it in a better state than it was before.
At least untill you refactor something, and the act of refactoring, even though it shouldn’t logically cause any problems, causes everything to break.
