• vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Damn right. I care about getting features in the hands of my users. If code quality helps with that, if type script helps with that, I’m all in favor.

    But the moment I care about code quality for its own sake you need to sack my ass like yesterday.

    • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      maintainability is arguably not a value-added for the end user. But still absolutely important. Robustness of code is arguably not visible to an end-user, until it fails. And that’s very important. Features are great, but quality is still important and is basically the mortar between the bricks that are features. Only caring about features leads to poorly written applications.

      • RandoCalrandian@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Less chance of security vulnerabilities, breaches, less bugs fixed more permanently, faster features, etc

        Those things all sound like value adds for the end user…

    • eltimablo@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      What an utterly blind, self-centered view. Write good, readable code so you can actually maintain it and so your coworkers don’t want to kill you.

      • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        What an utterly blind, self-centered view.

        This is a really surprising retort.

        In the end, the only thing that has value is what ends up in the user’s hands. The rest is only a means to an end, in the very best case.

        This is not a controversial take in professional software development.

        What is self centered and self absorbed is putting misguided notions of “craftsmanship” and maintainability over business needs.

        • eltimablo@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you can’t see that writing readable code is part of the means to that end, I don’t know what to tell you. If nobody can maintain the codebase because it’s a mess of spaghetti logic and 20-deep dependency trees (I’m looking at you, every JavaScript project I’ve ever seen), the end product is going to suffer while also making every single engineer working on it want to leave.

          This is not a controversial take in professional software development.

          Funny, it sure seems like “maintainability should not be a priority” is a pretty controversial take to me.

      • aport@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think vzq’s point is that you can write good, readable code that doesn’t do what the user wants. Same with other metrics that are ripe for navel-gazing like code coverage.

        It’s bordering on a false dichotomy… but I also believe that dynamic, untyped languages have proven exceptionally useful for rapid prototyping and iteration.

        • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I must admit that I write that deliberately to annoy the “code quality is everything” brigade.

          I have no issues prioritizing maintainability where needed, but in my experience people that dogmatically prioritize code quality are not honest with themselves. They almost never chase code quality in general. They are always looking to enforce some burdensome standard or specific tool or archaic process or fiddly CICD script, and if you push back they go cry in a corner about the abstract virtue of “code quality”.

          Just be straight with me. You enjoy using type script. Tell me how it adds value to the product and the customer.

          Stop trying to shame me into it. I can’t be shamed. I have no shame. I’m a professional software engineer.

          • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re setting up a theoretically boogie man that no one said exists and then setup the extreme opposite point of view. You’re annoying the people that are actually sane. You’re being dogmatic in your one views and too extreme.