Code Should be Readable

First published on
On the first day of my first job, at age 23, I learned the most important lesson of my life about programming: code should be readable. Four years of CS at university did not prepare me for this, but one day of work did (thanks Achiel!).

I had created something "clever" and was barked at by the Senior Engineer of the team that my solution was too complicated. For a second I thought he was suffering from low IQ, but he explained that:

  1. He was not able to instantly understand my code. Lesson: It was apparently vital that other people in the team understood my code. In fact, it was not even my code, the team owned it.
  2. The problem I was solving was simple and not worth spending much mental capacity on. Lesson: writing code is just a small part of what happens with it, code is much more frequently read, tested, debugged and refactored. All these activities take time and mental capacity.
  3. In 6 months, I would have forgotten the code and would look at it the same way he did now (that is: with a frown and raised eyebrows). Lesson: You are temporarily suffering from understanding the code too well, make sure you compensate for that.
  4. We were paid (quite well) to make product for the company, not to be smart-asses. Lesson: time is money and there is something called Opportunity Cost that makes your time even more valuable. Boring code is good code.
These lessons have stuck with me forever and made me allergic to complicated code. Of course sometimes problems really are complex, and there is big difference between "essential complexity" and "merely complicated". Senior Software Engineers should have a well-developed gut feeling to distinguish between the two.

I don't care much for fanatic discussions about Test Driven Development or Micro Services vs. Monoliths because reality is much less clear-cut. I think it's MUCH more important that whenever you create software, or basically anything*, that you keep this in mind:
  • the complexity of the solution should match the complexity of the problem
  • what you create should be easy to understand for those who work with it

As long as you build your software by these two rules, you should be alright.




* read The Design of Everyday things by Don Norman and Don't Make me Think by Steve Krug

Popular posts from this blog

"Security Is Our Top Priority" is BS

First published on
A couple of years ago I was asked to give a conference talk about software security. Well, actually I wasn't really asked, my company bought a sponsorship package with a speaker slot and I replied to the internal email asking for volunteers  🤣  Anyway, while preparing my talk, I realized a couple of important points about security that have not left my mind since: Security is limitless . You can always spend more effort to make things more secure. The same goes for quality, safety, employee happiness, etc. The needs of security are opposed to the needs of a convenient user experience . Improving one typically hurts the other. Now some organizations say "Security is our #1 priority". Really? You want to make something that has no limits your number one priority? I mean security is a good thing, but this seems a bit too simple? In fact, hollow marketing claims like that can make me a bit angry. In this post I'll help you understand what to make of statements like that...
Read more

AI programming tools should be added to the Joel Test

First published on
Here's a wake-up call to all CTOs: AI programming tools are getting freaking amazing and if you don't allow your teams to use them somehow, it will bite you in the ass in a couple of years. You will be slower and you will lose your best people. The infamous Joel Test is a list from the year 2000 of 12 things all great software companies do. Since then most companies have implemented Git and CI/CD, checking of three items, so we have some space left in the 2024 update ;) I believe "Do you allow your developers to use AI assisted development environments?" is a necessary addition. I get that you don't want your source code to end up on some OpenAI / Microsoft / Github server somewhere, sure, but find a way to use your own models or learn to live with it. Note that this is often not the same as "#9 - Do you use the best tools money can buy?" as blocking AI tools is about data security, not money. So why do I think developers need AI programming tools? I...
Read more

The long long tail of AI applications

First published on
Image
Last year multiple companies asked me for advice. " We are evaluating this AI powered product, but do you think it makes sense at all? It seems a bit niche and we think ChatGPT might make this entire thing obsolete soon. " Long tail - credit to Wikipedia My answer so far has always been: "No, bare LLMs are not going to compete with this product." I think that people are failing to understand the distinction between different classes of AI companies. I see it like this: Foundational AI - creating models like GPT-4 (text), Sora (video) etc. Applied AI - using existing models to create smart applications. Note that there are also companies not focusing on AI - they will start lagging behind, let's forget about them ;) There are orders of magnitude  (!)   more companies that will deal with Applied AI than Foundational AI, and they will be very busy for decades to come. Here's why: To get the most out of LLMs, you have to ask the right questions. LLMs have acc...
Read more