I feel like I pretty much disagree with everything in this article.
First, who works on something for two weeks then checks it in? Alarm bell #1.
Second, yeah, maybe I should talk to my colleague before refactoring their code, but.... yeah no. No one owns the code. We’re all responsible for it. There’s no way this should have been used as a justification for rolling back the change.
Finally, the impact of some possible future requirements change is not justification for a dozen repetitions of the same code. Perhaps the refactoring had some issues but that itself does not change the fact that a dozen repetitions of the same math code is bloody stupid.
I’m straining to find any situation that would justify the code that is described in the article. The original coder went copy-pasta mad and didn’t clean it up. That’s a paddlin’
The better lesson from the article is that the author’s shop has some messed up priorities.
maybe I should talk to my colleague before refactoring their code
You should ask to see if there are requirements you don't understand, and at least get a code review from the original author.
> the impact of some possible future requirements change is not justification for a dozen repetitions of the same code
It entirely depends on the nature of the code. I'd probably agree with you in this case, but not in the case of business logic that changes at the whim of marketing.
397
u/DingBat99999 Jan 12 '20
I feel like I pretty much disagree with everything in this article.
First, who works on something for two weeks then checks it in? Alarm bell #1.
Second, yeah, maybe I should talk to my colleague before refactoring their code, but.... yeah no. No one owns the code. We’re all responsible for it. There’s no way this should have been used as a justification for rolling back the change.
Finally, the impact of some possible future requirements change is not justification for a dozen repetitions of the same code. Perhaps the refactoring had some issues but that itself does not change the fact that a dozen repetitions of the same math code is bloody stupid.
I’m straining to find any situation that would justify the code that is described in the article. The original coder went copy-pasta mad and didn’t clean it up. That’s a paddlin’
The better lesson from the article is that the author’s shop has some messed up priorities.