Slashdot Mirror
Bad Programming Habits We Secretly Love (infoworld.com)
snydeq writes: Breaking the rules can bring a little thrill — and sometimes produce better, more efficient code. From the article: 'The rules are more often guidelines or stylistic suggestions, not hard-and-fast rules that must be obeyed or code death will follow. Sure, your code might be ridiculed, possibly even publicly, but the fact that you're bucking conventions adds a little bit of the thrill to subverting, even inadvertently, what amounts more often than not to the social mores of pleasant code. To make matters more complex, sometimes it's better to break the rules. (Shhhh!) The code comes out cleaner. It may even be faster and simpler.' What bad programming habits can't you (or won't you) break?
If you think it's nice to break habits or do unconventional code just for the thrill of it, remember how fun it is when you need to work on someone else's code.
If the code comes out cleaner, you didn't break any of my rules. The rule "make the code as clean as possible" trumps all other rules.
Sure, you can trade maintainability for efficiency and reliability. People do it all the time. You just have to understand the costs involved. If the efficient code gains you a million dollars in performance, maybe you can afford for it to be crappy code. Or maybe you'll be running the code for 10 years, and if it costs you $250,000 to keep a crusty old engineer on staff who can maintain it, suddenly that million dollars in performance may not be worth it.
<disclaimer>I am a crusty old engineer.</disclaimer>
John
Sometimes I will copy and paste a function and just do some minor tweaks were I could have just added a parameter.
Why do I do this? Readability. Having a function called SplitPersonName(string name) and another one called SplitCompanyName(string name) So when I run the function it will be easily readable, as well if there is a bug in one of the fuctions but it works fine for the other. I can just change that one function without having to unit test other parts that could have been effected.
Also I avoid too much Classes that are extended from other classes, that tends to add confusion on where a particular code is being called if you are debugging it from the middle of the class structure.
It is OK to break rules, but you should have a good reason to do so. Also you should feel free to not break the rules when you do not have a good reason to do so.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
From TFA:
my friend wired together an Eliza-like AI to his editor, and voilà, every function had a few lines of "documentation." The boss wasn't smart enough to understand that the lines meant nothing, so my friend was off the hook. His code was officially documented. I think he even got a promotion!
He should have been shot.
long methods - someone thought it a good idea to limit every method to no more than 20 lines. I think this is a terrible idea, and can make code unreadable, which leads to:
coupling - it's often best to tightly couple things for ease of debugging and development. How often are you going to change the database you're using? Is it worth going through another abstraction for every database call? Too much abstraction makes code unwieldy.
I'd rather have a bunch of 200 line methods that represent logical units of work than a call stack 20 layers deep.
In short, I suggest that the programmer should continue to understand what he is doing, that his growing product remains firmly within his intellectual grip. It is my sad experience that this suggestion is repulsive to the average experienced programmer, who clearly derives a major part of his professional excitement from not quite understanding what he is doing. In this streamlined age, one of our most undernourished psychological needs is the craving for Black Magic and apparently the automatic computer can satisfy this need for the professional software engineer, who is secretly enthralled by the gigantic risks he takes in his daring irresponsibility. For his frustrations I have no remedy......
--Edsger W. Dijkstra
Comp Sci professors teach "goto = bad" because the wisdom necessary to use it competently comes only with experience. It's like jazz; you have to know the rules and follow them before you can break them and not sound like a jack-ass.
Variable and object naming, and commenting is an art-form that takes experience to do well. Here's a few practical guidelines I've learned follow:
1. Think of newspaper headlines when commenting. Don't make somebody read the whole article to know what the article is about.
2. Comment the "odd" stuff, not the obvious stuff infer-able from function name etc.
3. Goldilocks Rule: Names both too long and too short can be bad.
4. The more frequent a name is used, the shorter it should be. Use comments at declaration to give the full name. Example of a variable that may be used often:
var dhv_id; // Department of Housing vendor ID
If it's used often, I'd rather have an abbreviation than see DeptOfHousingVendorID all over the code, making it long and "wrappy".
5. Everybody has their own preference, but you have to target the "average" developer (future unknown reader) to make code future-friendly.
Table-ized A.I.
We are hired to write new programs/new ways of solving a problem. Rules are made to solve common problems.
If we only follow these rules we are limited to writing programs that have already been written, in that case we are just useless.
If we know when to bend or break the rules, then we can create things that solve problems differently and is new and unique.
When I work with programmers so are hard fixed on the right way to do things, I often get a response that x cannot be done. I break the rule and I have done it in a couple of days work, then they will go but you didn't follow the right form.
The end user doesn't care about form, they care if it Works well, It can be maintained, and it is secure.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
He's still trotting out "rules" that were in vogue 15 years ago. Break, continue and early return are clean and inserted into every programming language eventually.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
It seems that many in the field these days are afraid to code something themselves for fear that someone will find fault. So, they do things "the established" way, which is generally frameworks or anything that can be called "reusable", even if this generation's "reusable" is always less reusable than last, because it keeps getting needlessly more complex to the point that nobody *can* reuse it.
Used to be programmers had a fault we called "not invented here", in that they'd insist on re-writing things that already existed, because it was easier to understand their own code than to use someone else's. These days it's reversed. For fear of criticism, they *must* use someone else's code rather than write their own. I call it "afraid to invent it here."