Skip to main content

Balence, Tranquility, and SOAP

I am behind schedule with my work. I attribute a good bit of this to my vices as a developer, and just as much of the problem to my good attributes. I place an equal portion of the blame on SOAP.

Striving for the goal of Beautiful Code, we can find ourselves lost on the way to actually writing something that gets the job done. Throwing away perfectly working code, because an alternative way to achieve the same results is more elegant isn't something that we might see as a bad idea. If the code is more l33t now, it will give us less trouble tomorrow when we need to port it to my toaster. We'll use anything to justify the overworking for code beauty.

Is it always worth it? How beautiful is enough and when are we just wasting our time (and money)?

There are terms thrown around like "elegant" and "pythonic" to measure the quality of code with no attention to the code actually reaching the goal it sets out to perform. The code may work, but that doesn't make the code good code. Without a sense of time, scale, and the big picture, the search for good code can overshadow any good developer's work towards working code.

However, as any issue as a flip side, those developers getting lost are doing so in the name of a good fight: the first against bad code. We might get lost and never complete our code, or complete it late, but we do so with the complete belief that it was worth it. The code took several weeks longer to develop, but just look at how beautiful it is. Without the struggle for good code, our working, bad code would eventually overshadow us just as much and consume our time with maintenance, refactoring, and the mother of all frustrations in coding: trying to read your own work.

I am wrapping up some SOAP-heavy work and the path to completing it has been a testimony to the struggle of balance in code. Recent refactorings of the actual SOAP response processing ended with a good chunk of bad code. I don't like the way I'm doing lots of things, or the fact that it doesn't parse corner cases the service I'm using doesn't even use. The code is not the beautiful code I would like to call my own, but the code is working code and does everything it needs to do. I had to bite my own hand to keep the refactoring to a minimal and focus solely on the aspects of functional goals, ignoring aesthetics.

Be careful on the road to good code. Somewhere along the way, you can easily get lost and never reach the point of having actual, working product. Sure, the code will be incomplete, but it will be a fragment of beauty. Learn the value of a completed mediocre code set over the eternal development of more beautiful code, which does exactly the same thing.

Comments

Anonymous said…
HEAR HEAR!

Far be it from me to defend PHP, but those guys actually probably get more done then I do because they're willing to live with "bad" (ugly, inelegant, possibly even insecure or slow) code that still works!

This is indeed a balancing act... one that, if we are to be successful geniuses, we must learn and learn well. normally we can throw this back over the fence toward the project manager... but when the project manager is us, we're our own worst enemies!

isn't hacking fun?!

-j

Popular posts from this blog

Interrupting Coders Isn’t So Bad

Here’s a hot take: disrupting coders isn’t all that bad.

Some disruptions are certainly bad but they usually aren’t. The coder community has overblown the impact. A disruption can be a good thing. How harmful disruption might be a symptom of other problems.

There are different kinds of disruptions. They are caused by other coders on your team, managers and other non-coders, or meetings throughout the day.

The easiest example to debunk is a question from a fellow developer. Imagine someone walks over to your desk or they ping you on Slack, because they have “one quick question.” Do you get annoyed at the interruption when you were in the middle of something important? You help out your teammate quickly and get back to work, trying to pick up where you left off. That’s a kind of interruption we complain about frequently, but I’m not convinced this is all that bad.

You are being disrupted but your team, of which you are only one member of the whole unit, is working smoothly. You unstuck …

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…

How To Care If BSD, MIT, or GPL Licenses Are Used

The two recent posts about some individuals' choice of GPL versus others' preference for BSD and MIT style licensing has caused a lot of debate and response. I've seen everything as an interesting combination of very important topics being taken far too seriously and far too personally. All involved need to take a few steps back.

For the uninitiated and as a clarifier for the initiated, we're dealing with (basically) three categories of licensing when someone releases software (and/or its code):
Closed Source. Easiest to explain, because you just get nothing.GPL. If you get the software, you get the source code, you get to change it, and anything you combine it with must be under the same terms.MIT and BSD. If you get the software, you might get the source code, you get to change it, and you have no obligations about anything else you combine it with.The situation gets stickier when we look at those combinations and the transitions between them.

Use GPL code with Closed S…