What Workplace Coding Practices Do You Use?

Agent_9191 asks: "Recently I've been promoted to what essentially amounts to a project lead role for every project we do, in house. Since my company has run for the past 35+ years with no form of central IT department, there has been no standards put into place for developers to abide by. One of my tasks is to set up standards in how projects will be implemented and produced. Right now I'm more concerned about trying to set up coding standards, so that any developer can jump into any part of a project and be able to figure out what's going on, without wasting a couple hours just to figure out the code. I've come across some documents in this area from a few sources (of course can't remember them off the top of my head). What practices/standards do you use in your workplace?"

Comments

Comments

[Gyga]

Tell them to use comments in code, and be sure that they make them good comments.

Re:Comments

[mopslik]

...be sure that they make them good comments.

And make sure they update comments if changes necessitate it. There's nothing worse than reading through a function's description, complete with well-documented inputs/outputs/conditions/etc. and finding out that those things no longer apply because somebody changed a 1 to a 2.

Re:Comments

[Threni]

> somebody changed a 1 to a 2

You shouldn't be using magic numbers anyway - use a #define so that the comments and code stay the same regardless of what the value happens to be.

Instead of

function(1);

try

#define LOAD_DATA 1

function(LOAD_DATA);

Then you don't need to care what LOAD_DATA is.

Re:Comments

[Py to the Wiz]

"if x==456 then //checks for conditional x and executes code if x is true - this is not a good comment if x==456 then //checks to see if x is equal to 456."

Actually, IMHO, those are bad comments. Too much commenting, while not as bad as too little commenting, is still a problem. Writing too many comments is not only time consuming for the developer, but it makes it harder to find the important comments in the sea of crap. Also, if the program is modified, all the comments must be changed as well. This can be a tedious and time consuming process for large projects.

Personally, I try to use comments for parts in the code that might be confusing. Even for a novice programmer, code like if(x == 456) is self-explanatory, no comments are needed. But complicated statements involving many different variables from different parts of the file may be confusing, and likewise merit comments. Also, comments with input/output or precondition/postcondition for functions might not be a bad idea either.

Use comments when you need them, but don't write so many comments that they become useless.

Re:Comments

[Seraphim1982]

I would say both of those are bad comments. Neither of them tells me something that a very basic understanding of the language wouldn't tell me.
I would say a good comment (that is, a comment that I would find useful) for that piece of code would tell you why the statement was important, what is it going to accomplish, and if needed why was it writen the way it was. For your code my questions when reading it would be "why 456?" and "what is going to happen in the following block(s) of code?".

Re:Comments

[republican gourd]

Has anybody written an IDE plugin yet to sign comments? You could for instance have a hash that uniquely identifies comment lines 10-20 and code lines 30-70 as the a 'set' of data that is required to match. Then if the hash of either section changes, flag it as a problem until the hash is regenerated.

Re:Comments

[jomegat]

BOTH of those comments are bad. If a person knows relatively little about programming, he shouldn't be in a position to modify your code. If they don't know what an "if" statement does, they have no business mucking around in my code anyhow.

Comments should concentrate on "why" not on "what." A machine can figure out "what," so a programmer should be able to do that too (eventually). No machine has a clue as to "why" though.

Any time I'm reading through my code and I can't remember why I did something, it's a red flag - that needs a comment. If the code doesn't look like it's needed, but it really is, you need to put in a comment explaining why it's there.

"What" comments should be reserved for the top of a function or largish body of code.

Re:Comments

[dorkygeek]

For example:

if x==456 then //checks for conditional x and executes code if x is true

- this is not a good comment

if x==456 then //checks to see if x is equal to 456. If it is, then the code within is executed

-this is a good, easy to understand comment.

Is this supposed to be a joke??! Both of them are worst comments, because they only formulate in english what the code already says by itself. Everyone can see that this is an if-statement, everyone is able to identify the condition, and everyone knows the semantics of an if-statement.

A good comment is not describing what is done (since everybody can see that from the code itself), a good comment describes why something is done, or what the overall objective of the statement is.

For example:

if (x == 456) { // Check if step motor reached final position. If yes, halt motor, otherwise step forward.

This is ways more useful. Even more useful would be to already use self-describing symbol names in the code itself, like

if (currentPosition == finalPosition) { ...

Re:Comments

[joe_bruin]

Our coding standard is a little like this:
Write clean code that can be easily understood by reading it. That is, good variable and function names, try not to make any absurdly complicated statements, and have your comments explain the logic of the operations. As for style, try to stick with the style that the original author started with. And finally, all people who use Hungarian notation are locked in the basement and given menial tasks until they repent their sinful ways.

I hope this helps.

Re:Comments

[NemoX]

Visual Studio has one called "Ghost Doc" that we use. Also, microsoft has some macros you can download that will create documents for constructors and for any exception within a method. Using these two together, and you have a pretty standardized comment collection that can be compiled by NDoc (the .NET version of JDoc for Java). I have a really good one for Eclipse, also, but can't remember it of the top of my head.

Re:Comments

[naibas]

Both of them are worst comments, because they only formulate in english what the code already says by itself. Everyone can see that this is an if-statement, everyone is able to identify the condition, and everyone knows the semantics of an if-statement.

A good comment is not describing what is done (since everybody can see that from the code itself), a good comment describes why something is done, or what the overall objective of the statement is.

Amen to that.

In addition to the original comments being redundant, there's also the issue of the code and the comments getting out of sync...

The company I work for just wrote up a formal coding standard, which includes everything from a guide to our internal hungarian notation, indentation guidelines, and even which C++ features/paradigms are supported, frowned upon, or not allowed. All the coders got a chance to send in feedback before it was finalized, and we even ended up with a list of recommended reading on the subject, including:

• Sutter & Alexandrescu's C++ Coding Standards,
• Meyer's Effective C++,
• Meyer's More Effective C++, and
• McConnell's Code Complete.

The idea is to keep the code readable and maintainable with the least amount of re-invention of the wheel. With good coding practices, it's easier to avoid bugs in your own code and spot them in others (reviews are also a big plus on both counts). And it gets any religious battles out of the way up front, so you don't have to waste time bickering later on.

Re:Comments

[Webmoth]

Write your comments first, then code to match the comments. This way, you are forced to clearly define the input, output, variables and algorithms that will be used in the code BEFORE you start coding. When it's clear in your mind, the coding becomes easier and less confusing; and you have an outline to follow to make sure you don't forget something.

If you write the code first, then annotate, you fall into two traps: "What the heck was that variable for?" forgetfulness, and "It works so stop messing with it" laziness.

Re:Comments

[iabervon]

I prefer:

if x==456 then //checks to see if x is equal to 256. If it is, then the code within is executed

That way, there's less chance for confusion if the code gets modified in the future.

Re:Comments

[BobearQSI]

There is lots more to coding standards than just comments and style. Where I work, portability and maintainence are of high concern too. Certain rules, like no hard-coded values such as 563, allow for much better code maintainence. Other rules, like in C/C++ never using an int for any value other than 0-127, and never using a char for anything other than text characters, allow for code portability. These are just some of the rules. If your product is designed for one environment, you may have different coding standards. In the past, we have gotten together as a software team and reviewed other standards found online and combined the likes and the like-nots to create our own, tailored for our industry and requirements.

Style is good for readability and also for consistency. Requiring spaces before and after operators like = and + help in reading complex lines. Parens () help also. Setting requirements for function bracing (or what goes on a line, depending on the language), and tabbing help multiple programmers understand and easily see the program flow of others.

Anyone who protests that they like their own style better because they can read it eaiser (while everyone else can't) shouldn't be working for you. Team players are needed. We've resolved many such arguments satisfactorily in the past by simply putting it to a vote. And those team players gracefully accepted the majority.

Re:Comments

[CausticPuppy]

Our coding standard is a little like this:
Write clean code that can be easily understood by reading it. That is, good variable and function names, try not to make any absurdly complicated statements, and have your comments explain the logic of the operations. As for style, try to stick with the style that the original author started with. And finally, all people who use Hungarian notation are locked in the basement and given menial tasks until they repent their sinful ways

Well that's a good start, with good intentions, but you need to have a standard definition of what constitutes good function names and good variable names. If you have 5 different programmers on a project, you'll have 5 different opinions on what good names are.

Make sure your coding standards are DOCUMENTED.

If it's a java project, the best source would be Sun's java coding standards. A very useful tool for this is Checkstyle. You can decide which rules to enforce (some of the ones enabled by default are more annoying than anything) but if you take the time to get your code to where Checkstyle likes it, you'd be amazed how easy it is for humans to read.

As for my department, we use CVS for version control.
Every time code is checked into CVS, it is formatted by Jalopy. So, it'll look nice and neat the next time it's checked out.
Also, we have a script that does nightly builds, and then emails the result to everybody on the team. So if you checked in something that breaks the build, everybody knows about it the following morning. :-)

We have a regular release schedule. All work is done on the main CVS branch, but when it's time for a code freeze, the new version is branched off and tagged in CVS. During QA testing, bugs are fixed in the branch and the mainline. New features are only added to the mainline.

When we are ready to deploy, we tag the release in CVS. The deployment script checks the tag out of CVS, builds it, and packages everything up into the relevant .ear files which Operations can then take.

This is all a very strict process, but things rarely fall through the cracks this way. If you don't have any processes in place now, it's best to implement them a step at a time. Get everybody used to working with CVS or some other version control, get them used to the notion of tagging and branching, and make sure there's actually a document detailing whatever processes you have.

And lastly, have code reviews every week or two. Review a different person's code each time and make sure everybody on the team is allowed to have input. If you're not at the coding stage yet, have design reviews.

Re:Comments

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't do weekly code reviews. Instead, make it a checkin requirement: in order to check in any code, no matter how inconsequential, it has to be reviewed by at least one other dev who knows what the code is doing.
Also, have a simple set of automated test scripts and require that every change must build and pass all of the scripts before being checked in. Also have a more in-depth set of test scripts that are run on a regular basis, and make sure that failures are fixed. Finally, make sure that you have a test org in charge of maintaining the scripts and adding new ones, so that your code doesn't become 'immune' to your tests.

Re:Comments

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to have that feeling about Hungarian too. Until i read Joel's view of how Hungarian is meant to be . There are definitely some times when it is a Good Thing. Not for your str_ThisIsString variables, but to put you in a mindset so that you know whats going on. Its not something to use everywhere (maybe 5-10% of your variables will need it), but if you put it where its needed, its something that definitely helps code maintainability.

Re:Comments

[GlassHeart]

Well that's a good start, with good intentions, but you need to have a standard definition of what constitutes good function names and good variable names. If you have 5 different programmers on a project, you'll have 5 different opinions on what good names are.

So what if they are not all uniformly named? Has anybody actually seen a code base where it's possible to call a random function in a class without looking at documentation or the header file? As long as it's an informative name - and code reviews should flag bad ones - you should save your fight for something that actually matters.

Guidelines on naming, on the other hand, is a great idea. Clubbing smart developers over the head for this is pointless.

if you take the time to get your code to where Checkstyle likes it, you'd be amazed how easy it is for humans to read.

One of the myths of software engineering, IMO, is that code is hard to read. For a competent programmer, code is *not* hard to read, in the sense that it's pretty easy to figure out what the code is doing. The problem is what the code is attempting to do, and possibly why. This is why brace styles, spaces versus tabs, and other "low level" coding standards do very little except to annoy. I've worked at several companies, each with different coding conventions, and I follow most of them. Unfortunately, I've found little relationship between maintainability and adherence to coding standards.

Re:Comments

[Hognoxious]

Er, like WHOOOSH or something.

Re:Comments

[swillden]

if (x == 456) { // Check if step motor reached final position. If yes, halt motor, otherwise step

That line still contains an example of one of my biggest pet peeves... the use of magic numbers. Okay, so the comment explains what 456 is, but not why and makes no provision for managing changes. What if a new design had a stepper motor whose final position was 256?

Magic numbers are a reality, of course, especially when dealing with hardware. But if there's no way for the code to dynamically determine the values, the very least you can do is to define a symbolic constant, and collect the constant definitions together in one place. For example:

#define FOUR_HUNDRED_FIFTY_SIX 456

// ...

if (x == FOUR_HUNDRED_FIFTY_SIX) { // Check if step motor reached final position

See how much better that is? And if the value changed to, say 100, all you have to do is modify the constant definition in one place, like:

#define FOUR_HUNDRED_FIFTY_SIX 100

Really, a little extra work up front goes a long way.

Re:Comments

[Philodoxx]

It's important to comment "if x==456 then..." if it is not readily apparent why x might contain that value. having a comment of "// check to see if x is 456" is counter productive, you're right. A comment like "// x having the value of 456 indicates that the previous operation failed because the CPU burst into flames" is useful, and can help programmers decipher huge decision structures.

Re:Comments

[NilObject]

The best advice I ever got was to write "why", not "what" a piece of code does.

// Increment counter
counter++;

See? Completely useless. Let's try again:

// We've processed one more message
counter++;

Ah, much better! Any Computer Science peon knows that "counter++" increments counter. What they might not know is why. Those simple bits of "why" comments can make reading code so much easier.

Organizational comments (those that delineate what chunks of code inside of a method do) can be helpful, too. (Ex: "// Normalize string", "Encode string", "Send String") They make narrowing in on a particular "task" performed in a method even easier.

Other than that, however, the biggest and most persistent and most annoying problem I have is poorly-engineered code. Some people just do not know how to apply their college degrees. I wish CS degrees had a bigger emphasis in software engineering. Would you hire an architect who couldn't design anything bigger than a porta-potty? Why does the CS industry get away with doing the same thing?

Re:Comments

[chachacha]

Agreed.

People forget that code itself is a language. And usually a much more clear and logical one than English. Requirements docs are for explaining complex business processes and code itself explains most of what is going on. That is not to say that comments are not important, but when they exist I want them to be there for a reason. Anyone reading your code is assumed to be conversive, if not fluent in the code language, so comments should explain things such as:

• strange idioms (ie. select((select(FH), $|++)[0]); // autoflush FH)
• reasons for non-obvious choices of algorithms (ie. // we're not using an FFT here because ...)
• intended input/output (a "comment preamble" to a method such as generated by VisualStudio. This is extremely useful for someone following a stack trace.)
• candidates for refactoring (ie. // this method can now be collapsed/condensed ...)
• pitfalls that are likely to trip up an intermediate developer
• (many other valid reasons exist)

Comments that merely "translate" basic code language into english are at the very least useless and often harmful: they bloat the filesize, obfuscate executable lines (I have deleted blocks of apparent comments only to find that unit tests are subsequently failing - the reason? - a single line of executable was buried between 2 dozen lines of commented out code), increase the burden on the maintainer and/or reader who must sort out the important details from the quotes laid down by Capt. Obvious.

Re:Comments

[roystgnr]

Even for a novice programmer, code like if(x == 456) is self-explanatory, no comments are needed.

You're right - how could it be possible not to know what that code is doing? (The rule is, the only magic numbers allowed are -1, 0, and 1. 456 is right out.)

Okay, but that's going to get really hard to debug!

if (x == (1+1)*(1+1+1+1)*((1+1+1+1)*(1+1+1+1)*(1+1+1+1)-(1+ 1+1+1+1+1+1)))

Re:Comments

[lourensc]

if (x == 456)
{
...;
}
this is bad code and no amount of commenting is going to fix it. It begs 2 questions; What is x and why 465? I would recode it as something like this that makes the purpose clear enough that no comments are needed:

const int screenWidth = 456;

if(xCoordinate == screenWidth)
{
...;
}

this way I type more code but less comments.

Re:Comments

[shinghei]

But the generated document is only as good as the comment itself, isn't it? Correct me if I am wrong, I don't think any of the tools that you mentioned can generate any intelligent comment. What good is the comment "The openSocket method throws a SocketException"?

Re:Comments

[weicco]

Oh yes, comments. Well we use comments as version/history information. We have every code file and project file on a single samba-shared volume. When somebody wants to change something he/she shouts "I'M OPENING THE FILE X, DON'T TOUCH IT NOW" and he/she has done modifications he/she adds very informative comment somewhere in the file (name/date/what was done), saves file back to disk and yells "OK, FILE X IS FREE NOW"

Documents... There is no documents. Who needs those anyways? It's much more fun to code something when you really don't have any idea what its supposed to do.

Test plans? Nah, waste of time I say!

Testing? Well, somebody runs it and if it doesn't crash, it works.

I must say I'm in the best damn work place ever! And now if you please, I'll go and find some ethernet cabel to strangle myself.

Re:Comments

[chachacha]

But even that can be rewritten as

const int SCREEN_WIDTH = 456;
if (SCREEN_WIDTH == xCoordinate) { ...

Using the constant on the left hand side of an equality test such as this will cause a compile-time error if you accidentally type

const int SCREEN_WIDTH = 456;
if (SCREEN_WIDTH = xCoordinate) { ...

Come on, we've all done it. ;)

Re:Comments

[JulesLt]

Which is why we would say :
1) Don't use variable names like x, use something that indicates the meaning of the variable - so maybe in this case lErrorStatus
2) Don't hardcode magic values, use a meaningful constant - which also means only one point in code needs to be changed if we switch CPU and find there is a different on-fire code

Then we get

if lErrorStatus == CPU_ON_FIRE then

Which I think is pretty self-explanatory.

One thing that isn't clear yet is whether this bit of code is sitting in a little function or part of a big block - i.e. what it's going to do on the 'then'.
Now at some future point we might find ourselves needing to check CPU_GETTING_QUITE_HOT. So we will still have to impact all occurrences of
lErrorStatus == CPU_ON_FIRE to add an extra test.
This leads to

3) Encapsulate tests in meaningfully named BOOLEAN functions.

I'd say it is swings and roundabouts as to whether (3) is worth the effort.

If the _cpu_on_fire(ErrorStatus) test is just done once, then we've had to go to a lot of effort to encapsulate a single line of code (as the expression is already boolean). If it is used >1 times it is definitely worth wrapping, ditto if the expression is complex - just to make sure developers get into the habit, as much as to protect against any change. (I think it's better to get into a slightly more time-consuming habit of doing the right thing and break it occasionally, than into the habit of doing the quickest thing and having to think to do the right thing).

The other principle that points to (3) is the one that blocks of code should be 'readable' and if possible a block should fit on one page - i.e. when you have an
if . . then . . .else . . end structure and the bodies of all the elements are large then each should be a procedure/method itself.
Again, _cpu_on_fire(ErrorStatus) isn't a good example as we'd be replacing one line with one line.

However, if you have a standard logging mechanism (say log4j), and template code for functions/methods, you can use this encapsulation to record the fact that the test occurred, input and output values, rather than leaving it to the individual developer to remember to add logging before their 'if' and on each conditional path.

Re:Comments

[fgb]

I get really irritated when developers check in code with sections commented out. If the code is no longer relevant - delete it! If you really need to get it back, get it from a previous version in the source control system.

Joel on Software

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Has several excellent articles on the subject This is about as good of a starting place as any.

Re:Joel on Software

[ajdavis]

Yeah, but Joel's an ass. Have any of his worshippers here on /. actually *used* something written by Fog Creek or whatever? FogBUGZ, a web-based bugtracker, seems to be his one claim to fame, & it's terribly mediocre. I mean, mostly it works, but the search function doesn't, the UI is inconsistent, & while you can define filters (such as, "my open priority-1 bugs"), you can't share them, which makes them nearly useless. Joel writes a good spiel, but when it comes to coding, his company ain't the shit.

Plus, he argues passionately for paying programmers well & giving them exciting projects, but in at least two cases he hired interns to start his company's most interesting apps.

Dude needs to work on his street cred.

Help people play to their strengths etc....

[FyRE666]

If you really are starting from ground zero, I'd suggest setting up a repository such as SVN as a good first step. Couple this with a good template to set up standard locations for documentation directories alongside the code trunk and branches (and any other resources your projects requires (images, sound other media). Make sure everyone uses the repo - even if you have to spend a day leading people through it - you'll save time later. This also ensures your projects are backed up (so long as everyone checks in at the end of the day at least), and screwups - such as deleting the wrong directories and forgetting about it for weeks can be reversed.

Obviously there are other issues such as naming conventions, useful comments etc, which are often neglected in small projects, but become more important as more people work together without wars breaking out!

Find out your teams individual strengths and preferences - there's no point trying to hammer everyone into the same mould - some people will naturally gravitate toward, and excel at certain tasks. It's important for efficiency and general happiness that this is taken into account when allocating resources to a project.

Evolutionary Prototyping

[PIPBoy3000]

In my job as a web developer in a healthcare system, I'm all about evolutionary prototyping and other interative methods. There's a handful of big projects where we take a more traditional waterfall approach, but even then it's highly modified.

It's nearly impossible for me to get final specifications from a user until they've actually seen something. Paper is okay in a pinch, but a semi-functioning web application is worth a thousand meetings.

Re:Evolutionary Prototyping

[ScentCone]

It's nearly impossible for me to get final specifications from a user until they've actually seen something. Paper is okay in a pinch, but a semi-functioning web application is worth a thousand meetings.

What's amazing is that you can say that in two sentences, and most web developers here will completely get what you mean... and that traditional managers (of developers) will get incredible hives and seriously rethink your annual bonus for uttering such heresy.

My favorite flavor of Not Getting This are the managers or customers that want you to mock up some screen shots for discussion, and are happy to pay for you to do so in Visio, or a paint program, etc... but if you instead actually whip together some HTML-based forms (much of which can eventually go towards further prototyping or actual use), you've opened the door to arguments over charges for having "jumped the gun" on the programming cycle. Never mind that I can produce conceptual mockups that actually render on a browser faster than by most any other means. But since a cheesy little pull-down-generating server-side script is "programming," there's PHB-fodder about having already done dev work before all of the requirements are described. Oh well. I'd rather write off a chunk of the project's proceeds than try to hammer out all of the requirements on paper first. In real life, with projects that must go from "I saw this thing when I checked out at Amazon" to being functionally bolted onto an existing web presence in a matter of a dozen man-hours, that's frequently impossible.

My boss doesn't care

[b0lt]

I like to think of it as "don't ask, don't tell" :D

Unrealistic expectations

[TheNarrator]

Right now I'm more concerned about trying to set up coding standards, so that any developer can jump into any part of a project and be able to figure out what's going on, without wasting a couple hours just to figure out the code.

Unless you are dealing with trivial projects it will take more than a couple of hours to figure out the code. Even the best documented open source and commercial projects take a few days to figure out.

GOOD code review; Chief Designer at every inspecti

[mekkab]

At every inspection; and of course example code for everyone to mimic the coding style.

And good unit test drivers.

Awesome commentary (both at the top of a package outlining the entire low-level design and at the algorithm level) goes without saying.

Oh yeah, and run spell on your code. I mean, really!

Looking for magic?

[YrWrstNtmr]

Right now I'm more concerned about trying to set up coding standards, so that any developer can jump into any part of a project and be able to figure out what's going on, without wasting a couple hours just to figure out the code.

That is a pipedream. Any project of significant size will require some immersion before a new proj member can get his hands around the particular bit he's trying code/solve.

Standards can be good, but they're not magical. Unless you're trying to generate a group of little robots, everyone has a slightly different style.

WHAT Standards?

[thepropain]

I'm all self-taught, so I have my own style which others tell me is impossible to make heads or tails of. The standard is: the boss promises stuff to our clients, and I have to whip it out [snicker] as fast as possible. Doesn't leave much time to make easy on those who would come after me. I jokingly call the mess of code I have to make JOB SECURITY.

Coding Practices

[Billosaur]

Here a just a few things that come to mind:

1. Version Control - find a VC system everyone can agree and use it religiously, whether for scripts, programs, or even web docs. I've use CVS mainly, with a little Perforce, and Subversion is good so I hear.
2. Coding Standards - depending on how many and what type of languages you have, you'll want to develop standards for how code will be laid out and documented that will make sense and also make it easy for somebody to move from one code base to another with as little trouble as possible. You can be as detailed as like, right down to conventions for naming subroutines and indentation, but don't get carried away or you'll stifle creativity.
3. Documentation - not just documenting code (which any programmer should be doing reflexively), but documenting system flows and procedures. It doesn't hurt to throw together text docs on your more important scripts/programs, outlining where they live, how they're run, etc.
4. The Brain Book - there's nothing I hate more than starting a new job and having to learn all those server names, IP addresses, what I'm supposed to have access to, where in the directory tree the stuff I works on live, what types of DBs we use and their versions, etc. So I developed the Brain Book, where I would write these things down as I learned them, to have a point of reference. It's a good idea to do this for all your major projects, so as new people come on, they can spend less time learning their way around and more time coding.
5. Code Review - everybody's coding style is different and sometimes they don't mesh well or there are divergent opinions on how a particular task should be coded out. Get your programmers together in a room and hash things out as a group. It will provide everyone with a say and may open up some people's eyes to new ways of doing things.

Experience counts

[canuck57]

My suggestion is get someone who has done this in a structured and successful environment. Otherwise developers will roll you over and your projects will be late, over budget and buggy.

I have seen it so many times where an internal inexperienced person jumps in the saddle without mentorship and guidance in the areas of software development (NT or UNIX) and systems management not native to the environment. And I have seen how long companies suffer with the problems created by this and how much it costs companies in the end. It makes a $1000 per hour consultant look cheap.

A good example is code management. Very few IT shops have it. Why? No one wants to know who checked in the buggy code! But few developers want such tools, especially the microwave generation. But at least when your caffeine isn't good enough and they move on you will know where the source code is.

Sounds simple? Not really, there are hundreds of issues like the one above. And it can't be taught quickly.

So get a consultant for 6 to 12 months that has done this, listen and learn and you will be off to a fast start.

code complete has some good things to say

[blackcoot]

on this particular subject. i believe code complete 2 came out "reasonably recently". that said, were this my task, i'd say the following:

1) document things thoroughly using a tool like doxygen. there is no excuse for interfaces not to be thoroughly documented
2) adopt a standard naming convention. in java, this is easy -- just use the default. in other languages, you'll probably have to make your own up.
3) pick an indentation style. it really doesn't matter which since tools like indent can convert between them almost painlessly. all code that goes into the repository is run through indent to put it into a standard format
4) require that code compile cleanly with no warnings at the most anal retentive compiler settings before it can be checked in unless there are good reasons to ignore the compiler warnings
5) average devs are only able to commit to the "head" fork (or equivalent in your sccs). the code is not committed to the "real" fork until it passes whatever tests you have
6) incorporate tools like valgrind into your testing cycle --- they should come back largely clean. if they don't, things need to be fixed unless there's a really good reason not to.
7) people who check in code which breaks cvs or, upon a code review, are found to not sufficiently adhere to your guidelines owe their dev group donuts.

Standards

[shoemakc]

Yeah, standards are great.....we've got lots of them :-)

-Chris

Programming Standards

[clockwise_music]

In no particular order:

1. Get a development database, a testing database and production database. Yes, you need all three.
   
   
2. Write a few docs explaining each system. Make these are detailed as you possibly can. (This will save you weeks in the long term)
   
   
3. Use software revision control. CVS, VSS, whatever, use one.
   
   
4. Use a bug tracker. BugZilla, Jira, CityDesk, whatever, use one.
   
   
5. Use whatever coding standards the language reckons you should. If java, use sun's standards. If microsoft, use their standards.
   
   
6. Write automated unit tests. I don't care if you're not an agile or XP developer, write unit tests. Check out Junit, or Nunit, or just write your own.
   
   
7. Setup some code so that you can check out ALL code from the source code repository and compile it by ONE COMMAND. Eg, "make" or "ant" or "maven" or whatever. This will take time but is worth it.
   
   
8. Have a naming standard for database tables. This will make your life SOOOO much easier.
   
   
9. Read thedailywtf.com and don't do anything that is posted there.
   
   
10. Write specs for your new developers. Please write specs for your new developers. Don't just say to them 'fix this up'.
    
    
11. Make sure code isn't hard-coded to a particular directory. Everyone does this. Fix it. (Might be part of step 7)
    
    
12. Create your own standard config files.
    
    
13. Have code reviewed by peers. Don't be a bastard but be nice when picking on people's code.
    
    
14. As mentioned, comment your code but use the language standard. Java - javadocs, Perl - perldocs, etc. These are cool, but don't get too carried away. Nothing can replace a good spec.
    
    
15. Ignore what most people say on Slashdot. (Except for me, of course).
    
    

That'll keep you busy for a couple of months! Doing thiswill make you well on the way to having a pretty high level of coding quality. Most companies don't do all of them. Good luck.

Re:Programming Standards

[RetroGeek]

1.a Get a test application server and production application server. Yes, you need both. The development server would be the developers workstation.
6.a Formalize the testing process by people other than the original developers.
6.b Write test cases.
6.c Do regression testing. Especially for "transperant to the user" changes.
8.a Have a naming standard for table columns. This will make your life SOOOO much easier.
11.a Where you do need hardcoded directories, externalize the locations in configuration files.

Worry about what not to do, too

[Rocketboy]

Many (many) moons ago I worked for an IT manager who's explicit instruction was, "don't use arrays." He didn't understand them and, therefore, they were bad.

The moral of the story?
 

A. You are not the font of wisdom. If very lucky, you are the point of the pen. Rule carefully.

B. Don't make standards based on what you learned in school. Base them on what you learned in real life.

C. If an Old Fart tells you that one of your edicts is stupid, don't assume that they're resistant to change just for the sake of being crotchety. Maybe they learned something useful over all those years and all those lines of code.

Standards

[umbrellasd]

Current place we have a corporate naming convention document which addresses the various environments that we work with. Formatting conventions are unspecified, so everyone in our group does what they want to do. I typically use an indenting scheme that is pretty standard for most .NET articles that I read or code that I encounter (because much of my work is .NET). For the most part, we just focus on being consistent to our own approaches and the most important thing is being accepting of different ways of doing it.

I think the most important policy is to slap the guy that says, "I like tabs more than spaces" or "I don't like the way you indent" or "I hate the way you put spaces around ('s".

Honestly? These people have too much free time. People use a variety of conventions and I've seen pretty much all of them. As a senior developer, I just take everyone's idiosyncracies in stride, even when they name variables retarded things like: n, vt, pkq, and rsptln.

If I can deduce what they are doing easily, it is no problem. If I cannot, I make them explain it. If they are not around anymore, problem solved. I rewrite or have their stuff rewritten in a good way, since the stuff was 99% likely to be utter crap anyway, and move on without a moments hesitation.

I've worked on a lot of large codebases and I've never encountered this idea of, OMG this code is so archaic that I cannot possibly decipher this person's intent--and believe me, I've worked on some crazy ancient crap. My obligatory developer arrogrance leads me to state that people that cannot figure out code because of coding conventions are weak developers. Anyone that has slogged through the convoluted "efficiency" of Knuth or the a,b,c,i,j,k madness of Wirth can figure shit out.

So anyway, if you have the authority and your people are actually willing to go along with a standard without a huge hullabaloo, then just pick any standard (you'll get way more mileage from just sticking to a consistent convention no matter what it is). If people are going to make a big deal of it and it is difficult to enforce, just deal with it individually and tell people to write sane things. Their coworkers will provide quite good feedback if they are producing shit, and that's where you really need to step into your lead role and work out a resolution.

One of your best tools for a standard is to create automation to enforce it. Get yourself some prettyprint scripts that you have run on all source that is checked in--in fact, get your developers the same tool so they can run it on what they check out to print it the way they like it. (Of course, you only want to check the source in with the standard pretty printing or diffs become atrocious, but that's technical stuff for a different discussion.)

Bottom line is that whatever you can automate in the way of conventions is a win because then it's completely automatic, difficult to bicker about (two coworkers can't very well bicker at each other when it's the prettyprinter's fault, so they can only come to you and you have authority to resolve the issue right quick, whereas they could just engage each other in an endlessly unproductive slugfest if they are coding by the convention of their opinion), and if people want a change it goes through you and you have a strong argument for--"if it isn't broke, don't fix it".

Kind of a ramble, but after many years this is my take on standards. Use a convention if it is convenient. If not, play it a bit more loose, but be firm on snuffing out those annoying neverending debate situations.

That said, one factor that is relevant is the type of work you are doing. I'm assuming from what you said that you have some flexibility to structure as you like. If for instance you were subject to government or other agency auditing (my current company is), then the loose method is not going to fly, but on the other hand, you would probably already know what conventions you needed becaus

#defun is sooo 70s...

[PaulBu]

enum is your friend!

enum {LOAD_DATA, SAVE_DATA, DESTROY_DATA} ...

Paul B.
P.S. And of course my all-caps enum values were considered too lame by lameness filter... ;-(

Re:#defun is sooo 70s...

[goonerw]

And Hungarian notation is soo 90's ;-)

Geek minds

[eric.t.f.bat]

The best description I've ever come up with for the Geek mindset is this: a Geek can hold a complex structure in her head and manipulate it with ease. A History Geek can hold the structure of a historical event and see motivations and causes from every angle; a Carpentry Geek can plan an entire piece of woodwork and see every cut and join vividly; a Programming Geek can hold a program's structure and its data and event flows and manipulate it as an idea.

Someone commented that the difference between Microsoft and Google is that Microsoft programmers are holding concepts the size of "If...Then...Else" and Google programmers are holding concepts the size of Bayesian filtering; thus, Google's Geeks are better at making big, coherent plans without getting lost in the details. It's not 100% true across the board, but it's an insight.

As a Project Manager, then, your job is to:

1. Allow your Geeks to transfer the concepts from the screen/page/whiteboard into their heads; and

2. Allow your Geeks to hold those ideas easily once they've got them.

Step 1 is a bandwidth issue: make the "inputs" more efficient by, for example, giving all of them dual-head monitors and high speed printers, so they can get lots of code into a usable format for reading (some of us prefer printouts; others just need vi/Emacs and a flicker-free monitor). Step 2 is a quality issue: Geeks who have to hide in headphones or run away to the park to read because of ringing phones and nagging managers are NOT going to be able to do their job.

And with any data pipe, throughput is more a function of time rather than pressure. So your dream of getting your programmers up to speed in minimum time really is -- pardon the pun -- a pipe dream. They won't be any use to you if they don't have the time to learn the systems they're working on.

Never comment!

[Billly Gates]

Its for wussies!

-USe tons and tons of goto statements.

-Make sure you use particular letters capped for variables of different types to make them more confusing for the losers who can't read the code and remember what each one was.

- always make calls by reference using pointers as arguments. Don't use call by values.

- Hell user other pointers that use other pointers to make things more interesting. Reassign them all over the place

- Never use a three tier model when developing client/server apps. This only creates redundancy and gets in the way of solving the problem.

- When linking to a database always use vendor specific extensions and avoid a database layer using something like odbc. It makes use of the advanced feature set by the particular RDBMS.

- Be a man! Show how much you know perl. Alot of one linners can save tons of time with exotic line switches

Oh last... make tons of money and gain job security because no one in Earth will be able to understand or work on your projects after doing all of these things. Enjoy

Ahahahahaaa... heh... Snrrrrrkkk. Kidding, right?

[pla]

without wasting a couple hours just to figure out the code.

A couple hours???

Look, no offense, but you either only deal in "toy" code, or you have such high expectation that you will fail, and quite spectacularly.

A new coder, even an experienced one, takes days or even weeks after coming into an existing project before he can contribute anything but the most trivial of changes. For a truly massive project, or one that requires intimate domain-specific knowledge in a niche industry, extend that to months.

If you can find a way to get an unfamiliar newcomer up to speed on any "real" project in a matter of hours, consider your talents wasted in your current position.

Fundamental coding truths

[WiMoose]

In addition to some of the suggestions made so far I would add a good automatic regression-test system which runs every night, and reports problems (build failures or result diffs). I've made mine so they "find the guilty" (whoever committed code since the last good regresstion test).

I recently put together a list of Fundamental Coding Truths after musing about this topic and why it was so hard to plan software development:

1. Software is not at its core a collection of a few clever algorithms.
      Rather, it is primarily (in the ways that matter) a huge collection of arbitrary
      choices and random implementation details.

      The algorithms that consititute the mathematical/logical basis of a piece of software
      are an important, but very small (eg: 1%) and relatively very simple part
      of the overall code.

2. Code complexity is pretty much exclusively determined by the (combinatorial)
      number of interactions between pieces. Each interaction requires at least one decision
      and usually many more.

3. Because of #1 and #2, deep, intimate familiarity with the code (this vast
      collection of implementation details) is only ever fully knowable to the original
      author(s) who made these uncountably many, mostly arbitrary decisions.
      (Familiarity by secondary authors/maintainers comes primarily from
        re-writting sections of code.)

4. Because of #3, programmers are not interchangeable. The efficiency with
      which a person can navigate the code, implement or even imagine changes
      is almost entirely determined by how familiar they are with these many, many small
      details. The ratio of efficiencies between a primary author and another
      equally talented coder is very large (eg: 100). Because of this, the original
      authors of a section of code are usually the only ones who are ever able to efficiently
      modify or restructure it. This becomes rapidly more true as the the size and
      complexity of the code increases.

5. Because of the complexity of code (the number of interactions and interdependencies),
      debugging and maintenance constitutes the vast majority (eg: 99.9%) of the work
      required by a piece of software over its life.

6. Because of the complexity of code (number of interactions between components), it is
        very hard, if not impossible, to predict with any accuracy what will be involved in implementing
        a given change. Even for original authors, unintented side effects are almost inevitable, and
        the primary determinant of the length and difficulty of a task lies in finding and rectifying
        unintented consequences or unforseen interactions. Because of this, the uncertainty in the time
        it will take to execute a change is very large.
      (eg: 10x range in 95% confidence limit of time estimate, say 1 day-2weeks).

7. Because of the complexity of code, bugs are an inevitable byproduct of writing code. It is hard
        to predict how long it will take to find and repair bugs as that depends on how many side effects are
        involved, which is not known until the repair is done and "fully tested". The only way to avoid bugs
        completely is to not write code. There are things that can minimize bugs or speed up finding/fixing
        them, but they will always exist.

Re:What a question!

[chromatic]

Perhaps someone broke in and fixed the code.

For .Net, here is what we use

[cyberjessy]

C# - The C# Coding Style Guide, Mike Krueger(SharpDevelop). This is probably the most widely used one (Novell). It largely agrees with Microsoft's internal coding standards, with a few exceptions.
    VB - .Net Coding Standards, part of the SDK. This is not comprehensive though, like the C# doc mentioned above.

Version Control -
    Server: Subversion + Apache
    Client: Tortoise SVN (Excellent) [We also use Perforce, CVS, VSS(Commercial apps)]
Continuous Integration - Cruise Control.Net
Intranet, Knowledge Management - DotNetNuke (www.dotnetnuke.com)
Project Management - dotProject (PHP) (www.dotproject.com), MS Project
Unit Testing - NUnit (www.nunit.org)

Code Complete

[pigwin32]

Steve McConnell's Code Complete is an excellent source for coding standards and a good read for any developer. I don't agree with everything in the book but it is comprehensive. Ignore that it's published by Microsoft Press, it's a good one.

Re:Comments lie

[Lehk228]

Comments lie. Code never lies.

I beg to differ

Pragmatic

[dividius]

Read and apply the Pragmatic Programmer.

Re:Question about Hungarian Notation

[joe_bruin]

Hungarian notation has its (extremely limited) uses.  The reality is that it turns code into garbage.  Go ahead, read aloud the lines of code below.

// the old c style
if(cur == last) rec->tag = name;

// camel case
if(currentKey == lastEntry) Record->keyTag = userName;

// hungarian
if(iCurrentKey == iLastEntry) prRecord->m_pszKeyTag = pszUserName;

Now imagine discussing them with your coworker.  Imagine thinking in your head "What should I do if prRecord->m_pszKeyTag is NULL?"  Humans are good at symbolic manipulation.  Giving something a name makes it easier to deal with.  Giving something a label that cannot be easily manipulated in language (spoken or in your head) severely hampers the ability to think it through.

The argument for Hungarian is usually "but it lets you know what the variables are".  This is the maintainance programmer argument.    This argument rarely makes sense in reality, unless some very bad programming is involved.  First of all, if you do not understand the current code you are about to modify, you should *not* be modifying it.  If your maintainance programmer is just going to have a look at two lines of code, add a third in the middle, and hope for the best then you are truly fucked.  He has obviously not understood the code enough to know what the consequences of the modification will be.  The reality is, if your current logic unit is such a monstrosity that looking up the types of your variables is a burden, and your variable names are so poor that it is insufficient to infer at least a basic understanding of what is going on without having to resort to prepending types, you should probably step away from the keyboard, turn off your computer, and tell your boss that you had an epiphany and will be pursuing a career in French fry development.

Domain Driven Design

[Symbiot]

If you want code that can be readily understood you need something other than coding conventions. Coding conventions only make the code all look the same. You can get almost all of the benefit (without most of the arguments) by saying only that each file must be written with the same coding convention throughout. The code will get prettier and prettier with tighter conventions and developers will waste less time reformatting each others code. But it won't do a thing to make your project more understandable.

For that you need an understandable design and the best advice I've ever seen for that is in Eric Evens' "Domain Driven Design" http://domaindrivendesign.org/. The advice there will work for both Agile and non-Agile projects and its core themes are pretty much unavoidable truths about how to write code for a project that is also written about the project: use language that comes from the projects domain, insulate code from each domain or sub-domain from the rest of the world, keep each method at the same level of abstraction (that's big) and make implicit concepts explicit, to name a few. The key is for your developers to consider themselves to be authors and to strive to keep each little piece of code they write on-topic. Not only will it be easier for new developers to come up to speed but the code will work a heck of a lot better too.

Coding standards

[Todd Knarr]

As someone with 20+ years of professional programming under my belt, a lot of it doing maintenance and enhancement of existing code, I'll say this: most of what's considered "coding standards" doesn't much matter. Indentation, brace positioning, type prefixes on variables, underlines vs. StudlyCaps, capitalization in general, most competent programmers can pick up on any variation quickly. The few things that count are more general:

1. Comment logic and motivation, not the code itself. I can figure out what the code's doing. What I need coming into it's what it's supposed to be doing, why the code does things the way it does, what the data structures are supposed to represent and how they're supposed to be used. On routines, tell me what the routine's supposed to accomplish, what arguments it takes in and what results it spits out (including error conditions).
2. Make variable names descriptive. Abbreviate where it makes sense, but make the name give me an idea of what it's for. It's less important that I know it's a string than that I know it's the last name of the customer whose order you're processing. And if all it's for is the index in a loop and it's got no meaning outside of the loop, then yes i and j are perfectly legitimate names that any programmer will (or should, at least) recognize.
3. Programmers should try to use consistent indentation, brace alignment and other formatting things when writing new code, and should try to match the existing formatting when modifying code. Emacs and other modern editors can do automatic indentation and pretty-printing for you, make use of those features and make it easy for programmers to set their editors up to match commonly-used styles. And make them clean up garbage, things like trailing whitespace and irregular alignment are disproportionate pains. I don't care much what the tab interval is, but I hate it when the interval changes every few lines.
4. Use whitespace for readability. Code like if(strlen(obj.getname())" is legal, but it's a lot harder to read than "if ( strlen( obj.getname() ) ". It also makes it easier to distinguish functions ("f(x)") from control structures ("if ( x )"). Similarly, putting the opening brace of a loop or conditional on the end of the line may be compact, but it makes it hard to distinguish the start of a multi-line body from a single-line body followed by some lines with the wrong indentation.
5. A few small formatting things are overall useful. Symbolic constants should be immediately recognizable as such and all-caps is a commonly-recognized way of doing that, for example. And the indentation level of the code should match the logical level, that is the "then" and "else" bodies of an if statement should be indented further than the "if" and "else" keywords (which should both be indented at the same level).

Code cleanly and remove comment

[oo_waratah]

replace a stupid name with a sensible name:

      messages_processed++;

This actually makes sense without the comment.

Re:Code cleanly and remove comment

[rkww]

replace a stupid name with a sensible name:

messages_processed++;

That's still got potential for confusion - it could be a 'we've finished processing the messages' flag, which obviously should be a boolean, but somebody else wrote the code, so we can't be sure.

totalMessages++;

would be better, but it's still not perfect. Sometimes the hardest part of programming is creating meaningful variable names.

Re:Code cleanly and remove comment

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could turn it into a Web Service.

Re:Comments lie

[bullgod]

But code can only tell you the how it can never tell you the why. That's usually more important
I once came across a ~1400 line function of complex maths transformations with one comment

i++ /* increment i */

What's i? and more importantly why increment it?

In addition...

[SeanDuggan]

The general theory of coding practices: Don't be a moron.
More importantly: Don't be too clever.

It's when people try to get clever in their coding that it gets hard to read. And, quite frankly, that's the code that generally breaks most easily.

looong functions

[namekuseijin]

"I once came across a ~1400 line function"

This is so fucking wrong and wicked the programmer who did it should go straight to hell. I'm sure there's no functional coesion in there: most likely there are many disparate tasks that should be each in its own function and called from there. I'm sure there is a lot of cut-n-paste in there that should be each in its own function and called from there.

I'm sure you can guess where i'm willing to get to... more important than hungarian notation, comments or documentation in PDF format is abiding for these 2 simple rules: KISS -- keep it simple, stupid -- and DRY -- don't repeat yourself. Once you do it, coding and reading code is a lot easier.

So, my advice:
* Give meaningful names to important, global, business rules variables ( local variables like i or c are ok, since they are mostly irrelevant ) or functions/methods/procedures/subroutines
* Write short, highly coesive functions/methods/procedures/subroutines
* Stop the cut-n-paste madness! If you do it a lot, it's obvious the copied code if begging to be parametrized and be given a name. Programmers altering your original code will be thankful
* Write modular code, not a plain, huge, stupid monolithic wall of letters. Even in languages with no namespace support ( C/PHP etc ) a good naming convention for functions of a certain module/header can do wonders...

* and please: meaningful names don't mean phrase-like names like thisLocalVariableIsCool. Conciseness go a long way towards good readability...