When I decided to create this site, one of the main things I wanted to do was keep the blog as something of a journal. I’ve tried this in the past when I was writing a C++ library, C8 and it was an interesting experience.
While my earlier efforts related to something a little more complex, one of the reasons I found the exercise interesting was that it would allow me, and others, to come back and review what I did and why. Looking back nearly 3 years on from that previous experiment I realised there was a lot of interesting detail that wouldn’t be at all obvious from the Git commits.
Unlike C++, my HTML and CSS skills are pretty limited, but I found myself applying lessons learned in other software development to keep my future self sane.
The names of things really matter. We want them to make sense and not be surprising. The original theme files I’d
picked up had some rather odd names. For example the
<head> tag had a partial HTML snippet file called
while the HTML header was called
head.html. These are things that confused me over the last couple of days and would
have done so again. They weren’t big sources of confusion, but every incremental time would have been more time wasted for
mee. More importantly, they’d have been an incremental source of confusion to anyone else who read the code for this site.
I’ve seen too many examples of source code being made very dense in the apparent interests of simplification, but all too often I see pointless refactoring. Sometimes it’s ok to just copy 2 or 3 lines of code to make it easy to read things all in one place. Sometimes it’s better to make the CSS match up with the HTML structure, even if that leads to a little duplication, as that can make it easier to work out how those things line up together.
One of the things that’s most frustrating to me is lack of consistency. Doing the same thing in different ways just makes it harder for everyone who comes after you. Future readers will wonder what makes one different to the other and worry about what they’ve not understood. Left unchecked this creates islands of code that maintainers don’t want to touch in case they didn’t fully get it.
This also brings me to a rant about commenting of code. There’s a school of thought that “self documenting” code is possible, but I’d argue that that’s ridiculous. How do we tell the difference between buggy code and correct code? How do we tell our future selves about things that we shouldn’t do because they don’t work well? How do we hint at things that might want to happen in the future? There are certainly bad comments; those that don’t match up with the code, or just describe obvious syntactic characteristics, but good comments explain why the code is the way it’s written!
I don’t expect to have convinced anyone yet, but here’s a test that might help persuade you. Take any significant piece of software that you’ve written and find another developer who doesn’t understand already it. Your role is to answer any questions about your software, while their role is to read it and explain back to you how each part works. To see this properly you have to arrange to do this in person.
What I’ve always found interesting about this test is the number of questions that get asked by the other person. Usually they’ll seek clarifications. Often they’ll end up saying things like “err, oh, no, that’s not what it’s doing”. Sometimes they’re completely baffled. Occasionally they’ll find bugs. Almost never do they scroll quickly through the code just describing it!
So, finally, here’s the thing that I wish more software developers thought about.
The objective of writing good source code isn’t just for a compiler or interpreter - it’s for the benefit of future maintainers. Those people are going to need a lot more hints and help. They not only need to know what you wanted the code to do now but also how it might need to be modified by the time they’re looking at it.
Thing’s aren’t done when the machine in front of you gets it right, they’re done when the next developer who needs to alter something is able to get it right too.