Every time I look back at old stuff, I have to remind myself of the relative importance of getting it done, vs getting it perfect, at the time.
Inevitably, there were no clear requirements at the outset, or if there were they were vastly outnumbered by additional requirements that scope-crept their way into the project. The project was "due" before I was asked to help / landed with the whole thing to do myself. The project was under-estimated and is now "on the critical path" for a larger initiative. Other interested parties are too busy to meet during definition time, but all too willing to point out missing scope after a "finished solution" is presented.
Yeah, I used to be in the medical device industry. Once shipped, an update typically meant a patient needed additional surgery because of your mistake. That really emphasized the "unless absolutely necessary" part of your statement.
Not just in implantables, though implantables have that whole additional surgical risk aspect, but all medical devices have painful piles of paperwork required for each revision. They're trying to lighten the load for "security patches" but so far it's still a major pain. I suspect it's the much the same in avionics and any other industry that requires documented validation against traceable requirements and all that jazz.
Oh yeah... I once had a project to change a 0 to a 1 in a file on a machine used to manufacture devices. Basically operator had to align crosshairs over a certain point before starting. At 4 of the systems the operator could just touch the screen at the point and go. At one they had to push x+ or x- or y+ or y- repeatedly to line it up because the configuration had a 0 in the option "Click To Align"... It took 8 months to validate changing that to be 1
Progressing is cool, but having 10 yoe and still outputing spaghetti is bad. I am just saying if you care enough about what you are doing you are top 10% already
And as others have noted, how much time you are actually given. PMs and managers don’t know or care about code quality, they just want something to work NOW
And there is never time to maintain the code, because each project only want to add more feature/s which makes the spaghetti code even worse.
In my group we had a golden opportunity to fix all old mistakes but no, we (decided by PO and group manager) needed to spend all time on proof of concepts that will go to production at earliest in 5 years. Now that opportunity is gone and we are crunching in order to meet the deadlines instead. Still with bad code quality of course.
My newest one is as impulsive as I am so the digressions he tasks me with have stalled out long term development plans, yet he's oblivious enough of the situation to seriously ask why progress is taking so long every year during reviews.
I know this is probably a joke, but they must be doing this. Even if the AI isn’t making this discussion, they must be trying to separate good engineers from AI bros that only ever knew how to vibe code.
If it's all if statements and if it uses well nested logic and if it's written in a modern language and if the number of if statements doesn't exceed 57, it could be good. Otherwise it is overly verbose. Otherwise it is dated. Otherwise it is spaghetti code. Otherwise it should go to the regular code check routine function.
29 Comments
HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml · 68 pts · 109d
You know it's bad when AI slop is calling out your human slop.
stupidcasey@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 108d
I think people forget just how bad the average code is when complaining about AI slop.
Artisian@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 109d
good meme
idriss@lemmy.ml · 22 pts · 108d
That could easily be like 90% of my current and previous coworkers.
vrek@programming.dev · 34 pts · 108d
The worst programmer I ever met was myself 6 months ago...
MangoCats@feddit.it · 4 pts · 108d
Every time I look back at old stuff, I have to remind myself of the relative importance of getting it done, vs getting it perfect, at the time.
Inevitably, there were no clear requirements at the outset, or if there were they were vastly outnumbered by additional requirements that scope-crept their way into the project. The project was "due" before I was asked to help / landed with the whole thing to do myself. The project was under-estimated and is now "on the critical path" for a larger initiative. Other interested parties are too busy to meet during definition time, but all too willing to point out missing scope after a "finished solution" is presented.
Yeah, me from the past... not a fair reflection.
vrek@programming.dev · 1 pts · 108d
True all that plays a part.
MangoCats@feddit.it · 1 pts · 108d
And the real thing, in our industry, once it is verified and validated and shipped - you don't touch it unless absolutely necessary.
vrek@programming.dev · 3 pts · 107d
Yeah, I used to be in the medical device industry. Once shipped, an update typically meant a patient needed additional surgery because of your mistake. That really emphasized the "unless absolutely necessary" part of your statement.
MangoCats@feddit.it · 1 pts · 107d
Not just in implantables, though implantables have that whole additional surgical risk aspect, but all medical devices have painful piles of paperwork required for each revision. They're trying to lighten the load for "security patches" but so far it's still a major pain. I suspect it's the much the same in avionics and any other industry that requires documented validation against traceable requirements and all that jazz.
vrek@programming.dev · 1 pts · 107d
Oh yeah... I once had a project to change a 0 to a 1 in a file on a machine used to manufacture devices. Basically operator had to align crosshairs over a certain point before starting. At 4 of the systems the operator could just touch the screen at the point and go. At one they had to push x+ or x- or y+ or y- repeatedly to line it up because the configuration had a 0 in the option "Click To Align"... It took 8 months to validate changing that to be 1
idriss@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 108d
Progressing is cool, but having 10 yoe and still outputing spaghetti is bad. I am just saying if you care enough about what you are doing you are top 10% already
eldavi@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 108d
the quality of the code is dependent on the quality of the pay. lol
Cityshrimp@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 108d
And as others have noted, how much time you are actually given. PMs and managers don’t know or care about code quality, they just want something to work NOW
Kjell@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 108d
And there is never time to maintain the code, because each project only want to add more feature/s which makes the spaghetti code even worse.
In my group we had a golden opportunity to fix all old mistakes but no, we (decided by PO and group manager) needed to spend all time on proof of concepts that will go to production at earliest in 5 years. Now that opportunity is gone and we are crunching in order to meet the deadlines instead. Still with bad code quality of course.
eldavi@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 103d
My newest one is as impulsive as I am so the digressions he tasks me with have stalled out long term development plans, yet he's oblivious enough of the situation to seriously ask why progress is taking so long every year during reviews.
DonutsRMeh@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 108d
Jokes on them, it’s their code, not mine.
moseschrute@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 108d
I know this is probably a joke, but they must be doing this. Even if the AI isn’t making this discussion, they must be trying to separate good engineers from AI bros that only ever knew how to vibe code.
CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 108d
Like AI can tell good code from bad. Just common vs uncommon usage.
Alawami@lemmy.ml · -3 pts · 108d
Thats not how any of this works
CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 106d
Oh do tell.. As I think you don't understand how LLMs work...
nightmare786@leminal.space · 5 pts · 108d
yeah well their use of commas is grammatically wrong, so fuck em
morrowind@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 108d
Fuck who, the guy who faked this text?
sirico@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 107d
Oh so just because it's if statements all the way down it's not good enough?
prime_number_314159@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 107d
If it's all if statements and if it uses well nested logic and if it's written in a modern language and if the number of if statements doesn't exceed 57, it could be good. Otherwise it is overly verbose. Otherwise it is dated. Otherwise it is spaghetti code. Otherwise it should go to the regular code check routine function.
OleDoxieDad@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 102d
We will keep your code on file...
Zachariah@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 108d
asshole