After a decade in software development, the author reflects on evolving perspectives. Initially valuing DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principles above all, they now prioritize readability and understand that some duplication is acceptable. Early career enthusiasm for TDD (Test-Driven Development) has mellowed into a more pragmatic approach, recognizing its value but not treating it as dogma. Similarly, the author's strict adherence to OOP (Object-Oriented Programming) has given way to a more flexible style, embracing functional programming concepts when appropriate. Overall, the author advocates for a balanced, context-driven approach to software development, prioritizing practical solutions over rigid adherence to any single paradigm.
Chris Kiehl, reflecting on a decade of experience in software development, articulates a nuanced evolution in his perspective on several key tenets of the profession. He meticulously dissects his previous beliefs and explains how practical experience has reshaped his understanding, offering valuable insights into the dynamic nature of the field.
One significant shift involves his view on testing. Initially a staunch advocate for extensive, comprehensive testing, including Test-Driven Development (TDD), Kiehl now espouses a more pragmatic approach. He elaborates that while testing remains crucial, the pursuit of 100% test coverage can be counterproductive, leading to diminishing returns and potentially hindering rapid iteration and development velocity. Instead, he champions a strategy of focusing testing efforts on critical areas of the codebase, prioritizing high-risk components and user-facing functionalities, thus optimizing the allocation of testing resources.
Similarly, his perspective on static typing has undergone a transformation. While once a proponent of dynamically typed languages, attracted by their inherent flexibility and perceived speed of development, Kiehl now acknowledges the long-term benefits of static typing, particularly in larger projects and within collaborative environments. He details how static typing, despite its initial perceived overhead, can significantly enhance code maintainability, reduce debugging time, and improve overall code quality by catching potential errors early in the development cycle. This, he argues, ultimately contributes to greater efficiency and robustness in the long run.
Furthermore, Kiehl's stance on rewriting code has also evolved. He candidly admits to previously harboring a desire to rewrite existing codebases, often driven by the perceived elegance and efficiency of a fresh start. However, he now recognizes the inherent complexities and risks associated with large-scale rewrites, emphasizing the potential for unforeseen issues and the significant investment of time and resources required. He now advocates for a more incremental approach to code improvement, focusing on refactoring specific areas of the codebase as needed, rather than undertaking complete overhauls.
Finally, Kiehl addresses the topic of "best practices." He explains that while established best practices can serve as valuable guidelines, they should not be followed blindly or dogmatically. He highlights the importance of context and emphasizes that the optimal approach often depends on the specific circumstances of the project, the team's expertise, and the overall project goals. He encourages a critical evaluation of best practices and advocates for adapting them to suit the unique needs of each individual project, rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all mentality.
Summary of Comments ( 726 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42946281
Commenters on Hacker News largely agreed with the author's points about the importance of shipping software frequently, embracing simplicity, and focusing on the user experience. Several highlighted the shift away from premature optimization and the growing appreciation for "boring" technologies that prioritize stability and maintainability. Some discussed the author's view on testing, with some suggesting that the appropriate level of testing depends on the specific project and context. Others shared their own experiences and evolving perspectives on similar topics, echoing the author's sentiment about the continuous learning process in software development. A few commenters pointed out the timeless nature of some of the author's original beliefs, like the value of automated testing and continuous integration, suggesting that these practices remain relevant and beneficial even a decade later.
The Hacker News post "Software development topics I've changed my mind on" (linking to an article by Chris Kiehl) generated a moderate amount of discussion, with a number of commenters sharing their own evolving perspectives on software development practices.
Several commenters echoed the author's sentiment about the importance of shipping code frequently and iterating based on feedback. One commenter highlighted the value of "getting something – anything – in front of users" as early as possible to validate assumptions and gather real-world insights. This resonated with another commenter who emphasized the learning process that unfolds when software meets actual users, noting that this real-world feedback loop is essential for refining and improving the product.
The discussion also touched on the balance between perfectionism and pragmatism. One commenter cautioned against striving for an elusive "perfect" architecture, arguing that focusing on immediate needs and iteratively improving the design is a more effective approach. Another commenter acknowledged the allure of "greenfield" projects but emphasized the value of working with existing codebases, describing it as a crucial skill for any developer. They further suggested that inheriting and evolving existing systems offers valuable lessons in practical software development that greenfield projects often lack.
The topic of premature optimization also emerged, with one commenter mentioning their shift away from over-engineering and towards simpler, more straightforward solutions. They suggested that complexity should be introduced only when necessary, guided by profiling and actual performance bottlenecks rather than preemptive assumptions.
Another commenter offered a slightly different perspective on testing, acknowledging its importance but cautioning against excessive reliance on automated tests. They argued that some forms of testing can become burdensome and time-consuming, ultimately slowing down the development process. This individual advocated for a more pragmatic approach to testing, prioritizing tests that deliver the greatest value.
Finally, a recurring theme throughout the comments was the continuous evolution of best practices in software development. Several commenters emphasized the importance of staying open-minded and adaptable, recognizing that what works in one context may not be appropriate in another. This sentiment reinforces the idea that software development is a dynamic field where continuous learning and reevaluation are essential.