Let him play in the legacy code. You can just hose him off later before letting him back into the office so he doesn't track it everywhere.
Unfortunately if you let Junior play in legacy code once, it'll learn some nasty habits and make more of it from scratch, usually when you're trying to sleep.
It's true, spaghettification sauce stains clothes. Best keep Jr out of it entirely.
I don't want that shit all over me though. That's why I hired junior!
That's what the line represents. So they can pull you if you do something nasty.
God, I would love that so much
The junior doesn't know that these aren't unused functions. They're load bearing functions.
Neither does the senior
Anymore
me when first starting out at a job commenting everything I can
VS
me a couple years in completely lost because I never updated the comments and now none of them make any sense whatsoever
Commenting well is a highly advanced skill. I generally prefer no comments on code since it's less likely to confuse people and I'll merrily purge auto-doc comments and anything like
// getId() returns an id
That comment has negative value.
I can't help it, I always get the mental image of hands clapping sarcastically when I see something like that.
In my experience refactoring lots and lots of crappy code left by devs long gone, a dev who can write useful comments is by and large a dev who can write code clean and simple enough not to need them. If the code doesn't have informative names and clear separation of concern, chances are a comment won't help because the dev didn't really know what they did that worked in the first place.
Generally, yes. However I have been known to document exactly why I'm doing something incredibly stupid - because it's required but a stupid third party library which, despite being awful, is still better than implementing it myself as a refactor.
a dev who can write useful comments is by and large a dev who can write code clean and simple enough not to need them.
my boss is great in this regard and also always has to keep reminding us to write unit tests 😅
Comments should only be used to describe stuff that’s otherwise difficult to convey with code.
The best explanation I've ever heard is:
Comments should state the 'Why' never the 'What'.
There are some cases though where the code is just complicated for reasons outside of your control, in which case "what" comments are good - but they should never be taken at face value, but only used as a first step in understanding the code. There's a significant risk of the code not actually doing what the comment says.
Yeah. Most of the time I use comments in my algorithms, as they often use some weird optimized black magic which are difficult to understand without comments.
Like don't set this value to the obvious default. Bad stuff happens
I write a lot of fairly simple scripts in Bash and PowerShell that should be easily understood by anybody else with moderate experience in the language, but I leave a lot of obvious comments because my coworkers don't write any code and are extremely skittish about my automations. I add them basically to quell their fears.
Why are coworkers who don't write any code in the codebase?
These are scripts that manage stuff on a few hundred user endpoints and a few servers. They were doing basically everything manually until I got here, and the only way I could get them on board with my slow introduction of automation is to let them see it. I have to ensure things don't get too long, complex, or hard to explain, or they start getting nervous.
I'd rather teach people to comment well through my reviews. Much easier to understand two lines of well written function description in English than 20 lines of code.
The leash is good unit testing.
Oh, he'll just change the unit test if it fails.
Unit tests are there to get an @ignore annotation!
There’s also that long time senior dev who’s overly confident in their abilities and force pushes production breaking code directly to master.
Not for long there isn't.
Nah, they’re the one who’s contributing most to the project. Mostly because their code is so garbage no one else can work with it. But that’s not a thing the managers take into account.
Yeet that shit into main. Who needs unit tests, it works on my computer?
If it works in my mind it’s ready for production
YOLOdev is the best way to dev
This shit happened the other week for me. Senior dev pushed the shittiest JS code without testing the day of a production install and it caused us to have to roll back the install after it very predictably caused a bunch of crashes for pages on our public site. Worst part is, the entirety of what he wrote could've been implemented as a CSS media query
Make him unit test it all and then they can do changes that don't break.
Often enough, the old code is so badly intertwined that it's impossible to actually test. Those are the moments where all you can do is nuke it from orbit.
Well I was going for that... They will surrender before they do any changes.
Why is the junior dev tied to the other one's penis?
Because everyone sucks at drawing hands
Bro that's not where the penis is located on the body
Hey, I don't body shame
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
