this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2024
143 points (95.0% liked)

Programming

17318 readers
50 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev



founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Seeing that Uncle Bob is making a new version of Clean Code I decided to try and find this article about the original.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dandi8@fedia.io 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

How do abstractions help with that? Can you tell, from the symptoms, which "level of abstraction" contains the bug? Or do you need to read through all six (or however many) "levels", across multiple modules and functions, to find the error?

I usually start from the lowest abstraction, where the stack trace points me and don't need to look at the rest, because my code is written well.

[–] FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 months ago

Yeah, cause silly mistakes in one place never affect another place that's completely unrelated.

[–] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's great, but surely, from time to time, you have to deal with code that other people have written?

[–] dandi8@fedia.io 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I do, and whether I have a good time depends on whether they have written their code well, of which the book's suggestions are only one metric.

[–] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago

I hear you, but here's my experience:

I've had one coworker whose personal coding style actually somewhat resembled that in the Clean Code examples. He wrote functions as small as possible, used many layers of abstraction, and named everything very verbosely and explicitly.

Now, to be fair, I don't think he did that because of Clean Code, and he also didn't follow most of the good practices that Martin recommends. Most egregiously, he almost never tested things, even manually (!!). He once worked an entire weekend to finish something that I needed for my part of the project, and when he was done, it didn't work, because he hadn't actually run it at any point (!!!!!).

But even when his software did work, it was horrendous to navigate and modify, specifically because of that style of writing code. I know, because when he retired, I was the only person on the team who could deal with it, so his part of the project fell entirely on me.

Now, I've also had to work with code that had the opposite problem: short names, no abstraction. And a sort of "worst of both" codebase where the functions were exceedingly long and full of near-duplicate functionality, but overall there was a fair amount of modularity and abstraction.

But in my opinion, it was much harder to deal with the code that hid all of its weirdness behind layers and layers of abstractions, despite those abstractions being carefully documented and explicitly named.