Joel does it again
-
Causes a controversy, that is...[^]. Can't say I agree with him and I really dislike overengineering, frameworks, "architecture", design patterns... But "duct tape" programming? No, thanks.
-
Causes a controversy, that is...[^]. Can't say I agree with him and I really dislike overengineering, frameworks, "architecture", design patterns... But "duct tape" programming? No, thanks.
-
Causes a controversy, that is...[^]. Can't say I agree with him and I really dislike overengineering, frameworks, "architecture", design patterns... But "duct tape" programming? No, thanks.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
"duct tape" programming
Together with "patchwork development", "spaghetti code" & "scrambled bytes" is one of my favourite. And I actually like
COM(well he saysCOMwhile speaking aboutATL). :)If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke
[My articles]modified on Thursday, September 24, 2009 6:03 PM
-
Causes a controversy, that is...[^]. Can't say I agree with him and I really dislike overengineering, frameworks, "architecture", design patterns... But "duct tape" programming? No, thanks.
I was going to post a link to that here because I so vehemently agree with him it's not even funny. I'm a classic duct tape programmer. The only reason I didn't is that I knew it would be a waste of time because a great majority of the people here I would put firmly in the "Ivory tower" type who would not even consider the merit of what he's saying and the other 10% already live and breathe it every day because they work in small shops where you need to GET THINGS DONE and out the door.
"Creating your own blog is about as easy as creating your own urine, and you're about as likely to find someone else interested in it." -- Lore Sjöberg
-
I was going to post a link to that here because I so vehemently agree with him it's not even funny. I'm a classic duct tape programmer. The only reason I didn't is that I knew it would be a waste of time because a great majority of the people here I would put firmly in the "Ivory tower" type who would not even consider the merit of what he's saying and the other 10% already live and breathe it every day because they work in small shops where you need to GET THINGS DONE and out the door.
"Creating your own blog is about as easy as creating your own urine, and you're about as likely to find someone else interested in it." -- Lore Sjöberg
John C wrote:
I was going to post a link to that here because I so vehemently agree with him it's not even funny. I'm a classic duct tape programmer. The only reason I didn't is that I knew it would be a waste of time because a great majority of the people here
are frigtards? :) I'm only kidding! :rose: I'm not even allowed to use Duct Tape as I might hurt myself!! Most of my code is held together with spit, boogers and string! Some day I'll get to the Duct Tape level! :-D
-
Causes a controversy, that is...[^]. Can't say I agree with him and I really dislike overengineering, frameworks, "architecture", design patterns... But "duct tape" programming? No, thanks.
I'm entirely capable of being a duct tape programmer, but having had to support a system made exclusively with twist tie programming, I've learned a few lessons in Maintainability. I won't say design patterns are a holy writ to take literally and apply in all aspects of coding, but it you take the time to actually understand their uses and purposes you can use the concepts effectively without the bloat of blind implementation of them. Code out the door is all well and good, but if it comes back, make sure you can even decipher what it's doing. A duct tape prototype delivered to the customer as a prototype is fine, if they like it, bring it back, finish it, and give them the actual product. Passing it off as a complete finished product all in the name of 'get it out the door', well, I hope you have to maintain the thing and get the suffering you deserve rather than having your client hire someone like me to figure out what in the blazes you did.
-
I was going to post a link to that here because I so vehemently agree with him it's not even funny. I'm a classic duct tape programmer. The only reason I didn't is that I knew it would be a waste of time because a great majority of the people here I would put firmly in the "Ivory tower" type who would not even consider the merit of what he's saying and the other 10% already live and breathe it every day because they work in small shops where you need to GET THINGS DONE and out the door.
"Creating your own blog is about as easy as creating your own urine, and you're about as likely to find someone else interested in it." -- Lore Sjöberg
-
Causes a controversy, that is...[^]. Can't say I agree with him and I really dislike overengineering, frameworks, "architecture", design patterns... But "duct tape" programming? No, thanks.
Go, Joel! :thumbsup::thumbsup:
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
-
I'm entirely capable of being a duct tape programmer, but having had to support a system made exclusively with twist tie programming, I've learned a few lessons in Maintainability. I won't say design patterns are a holy writ to take literally and apply in all aspects of coding, but it you take the time to actually understand their uses and purposes you can use the concepts effectively without the bloat of blind implementation of them. Code out the door is all well and good, but if it comes back, make sure you can even decipher what it's doing. A duct tape prototype delivered to the customer as a prototype is fine, if they like it, bring it back, finish it, and give them the actual product. Passing it off as a complete finished product all in the name of 'get it out the door', well, I hope you have to maintain the thing and get the suffering you deserve rather than having your client hire someone like me to figure out what in the blazes you did.
You're assuming there is a contradiction between maintainable code and "duct tape" programming. I don't see one at all given what he's describing in the article. His basic argument is simplicity versus unnecessary complexity and I know many will warp it into something else to suit their hobby horse but they would be wrong.
"Creating your own blog is about as easy as creating your own urine, and you're about as likely to find someone else interested in it." -- Lore Sjöberg
-
I was going to say "Rarely have I read such a complete load of b******s". Unfortunately I read it every day ...
-
Causes a controversy, that is...[^]. Can't say I agree with him and I really dislike overengineering, frameworks, "architecture", design patterns... But "duct tape" programming? No, thanks.
But duct tape is a Design Pattern. :confused:
-
You're assuming there is a contradiction between maintainable code and "duct tape" programming. I don't see one at all given what he's describing in the article. His basic argument is simplicity versus unnecessary complexity and I know many will warp it into something else to suit their hobby horse but they would be wrong.
"Creating your own blog is about as easy as creating your own urine, and you're about as likely to find someone else interested in it." -- Lore Sjöberg
I don't have a distinct problem with duct tape programing, I have a problem with duct tape coding over duct tape coding. One layer works, one layer can be fine. But I've seen what some people do, I've seen what I've done to get things out on time. At a certain point you have to go back through the mess you've made, straighten things out, link associated concepts, and replace the duct tape with something a bit more solid and coherent. I'm a fan of refactoring the duct tape off, before adding another layer of it, because eventually it will become unmaintainable if all you're doing is patching it together.
-
Causes a controversy, that is...[^]. Can't say I agree with him and I really dislike overengineering, frameworks, "architecture", design patterns... But "duct tape" programming? No, thanks.
I read that this morning and found myself agreeing with much of it. The duct tape thang isn't the greatest analogy in the world but I have worked with people who can just code and others who spend ages fannying around with all manner of clever stuff. I found the systems from the first group to be far more maintainable and much easier to interface with. There is a half way house though, design patterns have their place but too often they used where they shouldn't be and blind devotion to a pattern can lead to some awful code.
-
I don't have a distinct problem with duct tape programing, I have a problem with duct tape coding over duct tape coding. One layer works, one layer can be fine. But I've seen what some people do, I've seen what I've done to get things out on time. At a certain point you have to go back through the mess you've made, straighten things out, link associated concepts, and replace the duct tape with something a bit more solid and coherent. I'm a fan of refactoring the duct tape off, before adding another layer of it, because eventually it will become unmaintainable if all you're doing is patching it together.
Hmmm...perhaps the term duct tape was unfortunate because what you are describing and what he wrote in the article bear no resemblance to each other.
"Creating your own blog is about as easy as creating your own urine, and you're about as likely to find someone else interested in it." -- Lore Sjöberg
-
I was going to post a link to that here because I so vehemently agree with him it's not even funny. I'm a classic duct tape programmer. The only reason I didn't is that I knew it would be a waste of time because a great majority of the people here I would put firmly in the "Ivory tower" type who would not even consider the merit of what he's saying and the other 10% already live and breathe it every day because they work in small shops where you need to GET THINGS DONE and out the door.
"Creating your own blog is about as easy as creating your own urine, and you're about as likely to find someone else interested in it." -- Lore Sjöberg
ditto. i hate hate hate it when i see a simple idea turned it into a nest of templated classes just because the programmer thought it would prove that he read a book on design patterns.
-
Hmmm...perhaps the term duct tape was unfortunate because what you are describing and what he wrote in the article bear no resemblance to each other.
"Creating your own blog is about as easy as creating your own urine, and you're about as likely to find someone else interested in it." -- Lore Sjöberg
At first they don't, I know what he's talking about, and I know what some people are going to run with it with(it's like real agile, and agile as an excuse not to document things). But if it keeps happening, and you're doing things just to get them out the door, it'll turn into what I'm talking about. It's a matter of how long you keep repeating the process without taking the time to ivory tower it into something a bit more graceful.
-
Causes a controversy, that is...[^]. Can't say I agree with him and I really dislike overengineering, frameworks, "architecture", design patterns... But "duct tape" programming? No, thanks.
I mostly agree with him, except for the parts about C++. Although, I must say multiple inheritance is rarely needed and template programming is rarely need (especially the ATL-style of multiple template inheritance -- ugh [don't get me wrong, I love it, it's cool, but it can be daunting to understand]) Sometimes though, slightly complex is better than brain-dead simple. Further, often in order to solve complex problems, you need complex solutions.
-
Causes a controversy, that is...[^]. Can't say I agree with him and I really dislike overengineering, frameworks, "architecture", design patterns... But "duct tape" programming? No, thanks.
It sounded like nostalgia for the old wild west programming days ... that is until I read: Duct tape programmers tend to avoid C++, templates, multiple inheritance, multithreading, COM, CORBA, and a host of other technologies that are all totally reasonable, when you think long and hard about them, but are, honestly, just a little bit too hard for the human brain. then I realized he must be talking about script kiddies.
...cmk The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying. - John Carmack
-
I read that this morning and found myself agreeing with much of it. The duct tape thang isn't the greatest analogy in the world but I have worked with people who can just code and others who spend ages fannying around with all manner of clever stuff. I found the systems from the first group to be far more maintainable and much easier to interface with. There is a half way house though, design patterns have their place but too often they used where they shouldn't be and blind devotion to a pattern can lead to some awful code.
spot on
-
It sounded like nostalgia for the old wild west programming days ... that is until I read: Duct tape programmers tend to avoid C++, templates, multiple inheritance, multithreading, COM, CORBA, and a host of other technologies that are all totally reasonable, when you think long and hard about them, but are, honestly, just a little bit too hard for the human brain. then I realized he must be talking about script kiddies.
...cmk The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying. - John Carmack
cmk wrote:
The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.
And plainly stoooopiiiid!