In the realm of software development, the assertion ‘Good code is rarely read’ elicits passionate responses, ranging from agreement to outright dismissal. This statement can be provocative, especially among developers who have wrestled with codebase quality and maintainability. Over the years, I’ve come to appreciate that while good code should indeed minimize the need for constant rereading, the reality of ever-evolving projects necessitates a more nuanced understanding of what constitutes ‘good code’. As several developers have pointed out, every piece of code will eventually need revisiting due to changing business requirements, evolving toolsets, and ongoing maintenance.
One fundamental aspect missing in the original assertion is that good code is often revisited not because it is flawed but because the needs and requirements of the project change. When working on bespoke internal systems or long-lived projects, as highlighted by user bena, the constant evolution means that what was perfect a month ago might need modifications today. Such systems illustrate that no piece of code is ever truly ‘done’. The life of a developer is entwined with the necessity to adapt and enhance even the most well-written code.
Diving deeper, we find that good code needs to be readable and maintainable, as madsbuch eloquently observed. Readability is crucial because products and their underlying systems evolve. Good naming conventions today might not make sense tomorrow, and this gradual shift underscores the importance of writing clear, easily understandable code. This sentiment echoes the principle of Occam’s razor in software development: implement the simplest solution and ensure that the code remains readable, even when rapid changes are needed.
Interestingly, jeremywho brings to light an often-misunderstood aspect of the original assertion. While the headline might suggest avoidance of code reading, the truth is good code is so ergonomic that when changes are needed, they should be straightforward to implement without multiple passes through the code. This minimizes the ‘WTF per minute’ metric, a humorous gauge of code readability that underscores the importance of clarity and simplicity over clever, complex abstractions.
Consider the perspective shared by chaboud, who discussed the balance between writing code so good that it doesn’t need to be read and making it immensely readable for those times when it must be. This dual aim acknowledges the reality that while striving for perfect abstractions and modularity is ideal, practical constraints often mean that good code today is reinterpreted to meet new challenges tomorrow. His quora response from almost a decade ago resonates today as it did then: code often written in idealistic conditions still needs to be practical and understandable for future developers.
However, the debate isn’t merely academic or philosophical; it’s deeply rooted in everyday practicalities. For instance, wglb shared an anecdote about consulting at Allstate during the Y2K period, where long-lived, legacy systems had not been read for decades, leading to anxiety and uncertainty. This real-world example underscores the criticality of maintainability and thorough documentation. Properly readable and documented code eases the stress of unforeseen changes and legacy system updates.
Moreover, the nature of ‘good code’ also intertwines with the ever-present issue of technical debt. As aaronbrethorst pointed out, code quality isn’t binary—it exists on a spectrum influenced by time and evolving requirements. Good code can swiftly become yesterday’s bad code if it isn’t adaptable. The equation of ‘Useful’ versus ‘Not Useful’ with ‘Good’ versus ‘Bad’ in his pithy graph highlights that even useful, well-written code can face obsolescence if it isn’t maintained or updated in line with changing needs.
Lastly, the real challenge in defining ‘good code’ lies in its ability to stand the test of time and changing requirements without losing its clarity or intent. jongjong articulated this well by advocating for highly cohesive and loosely coupled modules, designed to withstand significant changes without necessitating complete rewrites. This principle underscores the need for modularity and simplicity, ensuring that new requirements or pivots don’t render the codebase unreadable or unmanageable.
In conclusion, while the assertion that ‘Good code is rarely read’ sparks debate, it serves as a catalyst for deeper discussions on code quality, maintainability, and the real-world dynamics of software engineering. It’s not enough to write code that just works; it must be crafted to be read, understood, and adapted over time. This balance between idealistic goals and practical needs is what truly defines good code in a professional setting.
Leave a Reply