Skip to main content

In Praise of Crappy Code

Not all code needs to be perfect! This is pretty heretical thinking for a software engineer.

The issue is simple: how do you go about developing software for a small fixed budget. Imagine that you have $500 to implement a solution to a problem. If you spend more than that you will never recoup the extra that you spent.

This comes up a lot in systems integration scenarios and also in customization efforts. Someone wants you to 'tweak' an application that they are using; you know that no-one else would want that feature and that if you spend more than what the customer will pay you will end up losing money.

From the customer's perspective, the common 'time and materials' approach to quoting for software development is a nightmare. Being able to offer a fixed price contract for a task is a big benefit for the customer.

But, how much do you quote for? Too much and you scare the customer away. Too little and you lose money. This is where 'crappy code' comes in.

It is often a lot easier to come up with any-old solution that may work but is not pretty than it is to come up with a future-proof elegant and bullet proof, fully documented and packaged application.

A simple example of this is using cut'n paste. Cutting and pasting code from something that is nearly but not quite the same is a powerful technique for developing solutions. But the issue is that the code that results is often not maintainable. But, for $500, that is what you will get: a near copy of something that already works and is similar to what you want.

The real trick is to be able to design systems so that it is 'ok' for your solutions engineers to write crappy code when customizing. This leads to the idea of heterogenous code; of code that does not look the same everywhere in the system.

But, if you want to solve this bigger problem, you will need more than $500.

Popular posts from this blog

Comments Should be Meaningless

This is something of a counterintuitive idea:
Comments should be meaningless
What, I hear you ask, are you talking about? Comments should communicate to the reader! At least that is the received conventional wisdom handed does over the last few centuries (decades at least).

Well, certainly, if you are programming in Assembler, or C, then yes, comments should convey meaning
because the programming language cannot
So, conversely, as a comment on the programming language itself, anytime the programmer feels the imperative to write a meaningful comment it is because the language is not able to convey the intent of the programmer.

I have already noticed that I write far fewer comments in my Java programs than in my C programs.  That is because Java is able to capture more of my meaning and comments would be superfluous.

So, if a language were able to capture all of my intentions, I would never need to write a comment.

Hence the title of this blog.

Existential Types are the flip side of generics

Generic types, as can now be seen in all the major programming languages have a flip side that has yet to be widely appreciated: existential types.

Variables whose types are generic may not be modified within a generic function (or class): they can be kept in variables, they can be passed to other functions (provided they too have been supplied to the generic function), but other than that they are opaque. Again, when a generic function (or class) is used, then the actual type binding for the generic must be provided – although that type may also be generic, in which case the enclosing entity must also be generic.

Existential types are often motivated by modules. A module can be seen to be equivalent to a record with its included functions: except that modules also typically encapsulate types too. Abstract data types are a closely related topic that also naturally connect to existential types (there is an old but still very relevant and readable article on the topic Abstract types have …

Concept Oriented Markup

I have long been frustrated with all the different text mark up languages and word processors that I have used. There are many reasons for this; but the biggest issue is that markups (including very powerful ones like TeX) are not targeted at the kind of stuff I write.

Nowadays, it seems archaic to still be thinking in terms of sections and chapters. The world is linked and that applies to the kind of technical writing that I do.

I believe that the issue is fundamental. A concept like "section" is inherently about the structure of a document. But, what I want to focus on are concepts like "example", "definition", and "function type".

A second problem is that, in a complex environment, the range of documentation that is available to an individual reader is actually composed of multiple sources. Javadoc exemplifies this: an individual library may be documented using Javadoc into a single HTML tree. However, most programmers require access to multiple…