Skip to main content

If We Want to Go Fast, We Need to Go Well




Have you ever thought that we won't need to code anymore because programs might be generated from specification? The answer can be yes or no; there is still arguing about it.

The programming language is more and more closed to the requirements. The starting is from a very low level as Assembly to a very high level like Python. However, it doesn't make much sense when saying that we will eliminate coding. For me, we currently still need to express our ideas in exact words that tells the machine what we want. Otherwise, I hope in the future the machine is intelligent enough to understand our requirements directly from our words. ;)

Take a look at the famous quote of Robert C.Martin about what I mentioned above:

 "Remember that code is really the language in which we ultimately express the requirements. We may create languages that are closer to the requirements. We may create tools that help us parse and assemble those requirements into formal structures. But we will never eliminate necessary precision—so there will always be code."

So there will always be code and we should take care our code - this is all what I want to point out.

Later equals never, it is somehow a fact of refactoring code. I am quite sure that many of us might meet the following situation. At the beginning of building a project, we are just focusing on making a working software and then more and more features are added but we don't care about cleaning up code. It seems we go quite fast until we can not move anymore because the mess is out of our control. And then, we are rolled into a loop; that is: team produtivity is slowed down> increase new team members > increase mess > team productivity is slowed down > ... 

Reasons for bad code is because of requirements changes, because of the schedule is too tight and because of bla bla bla. No, don't blame! Just because of unprofessional programmers. So, will we re-design/re-build the system in this case? No, it is too late. It costs too much time and humans to do this. Therefore, the only way to go fast is to keep the code as clean as possible at all times.

Yeah, that is it for my topic. I just want to share briefly my review from the beginning part of the book Clean Code. Check further parts in my next reviews.



Let me know what your ideas down below.

Reference:
[1]. Clean Code: A Handbook of Agile Software Craftsmanship
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Google I/O 2017 Notes

WOW! How meaningful this below video explains about the name of  "I/O". Sundar Pichai talked a lot of Machine Learning Machine Learning is a very hot trend these days. Google uses it for their products. Google Assistant: Easily booking an online meal by talking with Google Assistant like a staff of partners, for example. Google Home: Hands-free calling. Google Photos: sharing suggestion, shared library, photo books and google lens. Youtube: 360 degree video, live stream. Kotlin became an official programming language for Android https://kotlinlang.org I'm on the way to Kotlin! ^^ Reference: [1]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2VF8tmLFHw
Post a Comment
Read more

Junit - Test fails on French or German string assertion

In my previous post about building a regex to check a text without special characters but allow German and French . I met a problem that the unit test works fine on my machine using Eclipse, but it was fail when running on Jenkins' build job. Here is my test: @Test public void shouldAllowFrenchAndGermanCharacters(){ String source = "ÄäÖöÜüß áÁàÀâÂéÉèÈêÊîÎçÇ"; assertFalse(SpecialCharactersUtils.isExistSpecialCharater(source)); } Production code: public static boolean isExistNotAllowedCharacters(String source){ Pattern regex = Pattern.compile("^[a-zA-Z_0-9_ÄäÖöÜüß áÁàÀâÂéÉèÈêÊîÎçÇ]*$"); Matcher matcher = regex.matcher(source); return !matcher.matches(); } The result likes the following: Failed tests: SpecialCharactersUtilsTest.shouldAllowFrenchAndGermanCharacters:32 null A guy from stackoverflow.com says: "This is probably due to the default encoding used for your Java source files. The ö in the string literal in the J...
5 comments
Read more

JSF, Primefaces - Invoking Application Code Even When Validation Failed

A use case I have a form which has requirements as follow: - There are some mandatory fields. - Validation is triggered when changing value on each field. - A button "Next" is enable only when all fields are entered. It turns to disabled if any field is empty. My first approach I defined a variable "isDisableNext" at a backend bean "Controller" for dynamically disabling/enabling the "Next" button by performing event "onValueChange", but, it had a problem: <h:form id="personForm"> <p:outputLabel value="First Name" for="firstName"/> <p:inputText id="firstName" value="#{person.firstName}" required="true"> <p:ajax event="change" listener="#{controller.onValueChange}" update="nextButton"/> </p:inputText> <p:outputLabel value="Last Name" for="lastName"/> <p:i...
Post a Comment
Read more

There is no expert, there is only us

Chairs in my office Once I was chatting with my teammates... Me : "I wonder why it is always necessary to refer to this source, that source, has anyone done it, is there any research? While no problem is the same, no situation is the same. Why not use our own brains to create a whole new one? Why do we have to be the insiders to consult the outsiders? Isn't that very paradoxical?" My teammate : "I agree with your point that no two situations will be exactly the same and that there is no one size fits all. But there's one like this, I don't think it's all the problems we're dealing with that only we can meet. So of course, if I can find a source to refer to first, it's still better. Just like when implementing a software feature, not every problem is the same. But I still have to go check to see if I'm the only one I've met? Or if someone has met me, I have to see if their method suits me before I decide to try it, but I don't blindly ...
Post a Comment
Read more