How To Write Unmaintainable Code

An anonymous reader writes "Make sure you're irreplaceable -' In the interests of creating employment opportunities in the Java programming field, I am passing on these tips from the masters on how to write code that is so difficult to maintain, that the people who come after you will take years to make even the simplest changes. Further, if you follow all these rules religiously, you will even guarantee yourself a lifetime of employment, since no one but you has a hope in hell of maintaining the code. Then again, if you followed all these rules religiously, even you wouldn't be able to maintain the code! You don't want to overdo this. Your code should not look hopelessly unmaintainable, just be that way. Otherwise it stands the risk of being rewritten or refactored. '"

Comments

missing icon?

[BushCheney08]

Ummmm, where's the foot icon? It's good to know that the author considers this a joke, but I'm afraid that Hemos might not be in on it...

not how it works.

[yagu]

Assuming this is tongue-in-cheek. My experience has been no matter how poorly written or unmaintainable something is, it offers little insurance to the author for keeping a job. I've been handed the reins to maintain countless "gone" employees' code. And, if the code isn't maintainable and the program is important or desirable enough, companies just limp along with the deficiencies. I can't think of a single occasion where someone was kept because of fears of maintaining their code, nor where someone was brought back to maintain their 'unmaintainable' code.

(+/- 2 sigma complainers -- reply here)

When I was a plumber....

[MajorDick]

I used to employ similar tactics on large non-residnetial contracts, not for myself but for our company, I leared this from my Grandfather and Uncle who did the same, 40 years after the construction a hospital my Uncle was called out of retirment (as a consultant to the firm that got the expansion) To show them "the lay" his price tag $250,000 for 1 year at 35 hrs/wk. He is in the process of building a new home with the proceeds.

On the code side, things I wrote 10 years ago I look at and think who the F*** wrote this, but back to my plumbing, that was the first lesson I was "Taught" NEVER EVER Say something like who the hell did this this way and why, more often than not after being in the business IT WAS YOU !, sure enough about 6 major jobs I went on to think to MYSELF , who did this holy shit is this complex, well after a day on the job I realized it was ME!!!

Never say "Who the Hell wrote this" out loud...a sure way to hang yourself when you practice this method of job security.

Not So

[AnalogDiehard]

Writing unmaintainable code does not make you irreplaceable and does not sustain your work duration.

I have had way too many times in my contract work that I was assigned to upgrade unmaintainable code.

In fact, I earned a reputation as a saving grace and the original coder was never called back and he earned a black eye as a poor coder.

Now who do you think stayed on the job longer?

Using bad code to maintain your employment.

[markv242]

The kind of coder who deliberately writes bad code just to maintain their employment is always the first coder shown the door. Always. It is a complete urban myth that not commenting spaghetti code will keep you in a job. There is always someone else willing to do your job, no matter how specialized you think you may be.

Unmaintainable employee

[wuice]

I know this article is somewhat tongue-in-cheek but it's actually a prevelant mentality. As someone who have watched people write unmaintainable code to ensure their own job security...

If the code is unmaintainable, the end product is probably bad. If the end product is bad, you're not protecting your job but making a case for your worthlessness. Even if the end product is good, most companies would favor a fresh, new person who can differentiate themselves from you by writing a more friendly, maintainable version of the same. When I have come in (back in my indie days) to update or maintain a system that is unmaintainable, I have always made a good case for a more ambitious bid (and more money) to recreate the system from scratch (or recreate as much of it as is necessary) in a more standard, maintainable format.

Besides, as all you open source geeks know, this is (job) security by obscurity, and while it may cause a major inconvienence for your employer, it's not going to force them to keep someone they want to can. IT kids are in for a rude awakening (or have already gotten one) if they think we're still in the era where you're irreplacable, where some other code monkey couldn't come in and do the same or better of a job of what you're doing for less money in a heartbeat.

Here's a hint, find a place that you actually ENJOY working for, that treats their employees well and isn't looking to pull the plug on them at the most convienent time.. And then give them the best work you can offer. Be willing to take the lumps as a line employee for a while and actually earn a career in that company.

Bad, BAD Advice!

[Roofus]

Make sure you're irreplaceable

First rule of business: Don't be irreplaceable. If you can't be replaced, you can't be promoted!

Insecure Programmers

[mabu]

I find it really disturbing that programmers are so insecure they need to deliberately make their code difficult to understand. That's just stupid. If you're a good programmer, you will have job security. If you're a crappy programmer, all the obfusification in the world won't give you job security.

Re:Lifetime aint always that long

[benjamindees]

Why is this so difficult for employers to comprehend?

If you're paying someone to do a complex job (hint: if it costs $1 million to replace them, it's a complex job), and they die/quit/retire, find a smart person to replace them. Don't find two dipshits to replace them. Don't give Suzy the secretary a $2 raise to do their job (unless Suzy the secretary really is a smart person, in which case, why weren't you paying Suzy more to begin with?)

I've seen it happen over and over again. Smart person runs entire company single-handedly. Smart person quits/dies. Company panics. Company spends ungodly sum of money to completely redesign whatever it is the smart person was doing. New system ends up missing functionality and costing the company loss of productivity.

Every time, something tells me that if this person was smart enough to do everything they were doing, there was probably a reason for it. That's not to say they can't be replaced, just that they probably can't be replaced with any random dipshit, or any random piece of off-the-shelf software.

So, if you're a manager/owner, and you find yourself in this situation: when smart person quits, put an ad in the paper, hire a headhunter, find someone with an IQ of 130 to replace them. Pay them 20% more than you were paying the previous person. Don't worry about whether the new person has experience doing exactly what the previous person did. Don't worry about redesigning anything. If something needs to be changed, the new smart person will be perfectly capable of changing it.