Are you ever ashamed of your code? Don’t be! Being ashamed of your code is harmful, as artfully explained by Ben Collins-Sussman. It’s better to make your mistakes in the open where they can be quickly corrected than in private where they can fester for months, even years. Note that we aren’t necessarily talking about open source code here. Being ashamed of your code could also mean not sharing code with other people at your company.
Ben uses some anecdotes to illustrate just how badly situations can get when programmers (or small groups of programmers) sit on their code for months on end without any outside sanity checking whatsoever. But these anecdotes are more humorous than necessary, as it’s pretty much a truism in computer science that coding off on your own in secret is a bad idea. The people who are doing it know it’s bad, and the only reason they persist is because they are ashamed. Oftentimes they’ll rationalize it by saying “I’ll just clean it up before I let others see it” — which, when combined with procrastination, can mean no one else sees it for months or even years. And if poor architecture decisions have been made, as they often are, the problem is too large for a simple clean up; a partial or full rewrite is necessary. This is not the situation you want to find yourself in.
Luckily, I can’t say I’ve ever felt ashamed of my code. And that’s not for lack of writing some truly terrible programs, either. I just value the feedback I get from others more than any personal attachment I might have to my code. In other words, I don’t take it personally. And to demonstrate that, I’m going to post a truly terrible program I wrote back in high school. My only excuse is that I was young and ignorant.
The program in question is “makeSite”, a program I wrote to create my blog-like website before the word “blog” even existed and before any real blogging software had been developed. I was writing what was effectively a blog at the time (you can see an archive of it here), but I got tired of having to hand-edit the HTML to copy over a previous entry and modify it each time I wrote a new entry. So, naturally enough, I wrote a C++ program to statically compile a bunch of text “data” files containing my own custom pseudo-HTML-like syntax into a website. I won’t defend the decision to do it this way, other than to say that I didn’t know any better. What this effectively meant was that every time I updated any part of my site, even to fix a one-character typo, my entire site had to be re-compiled by re-running the program, a task that, because my program wasn’t very efficient, was taking minutes after my site grew to be rather big. I toyed with the idea of some sort of incremental site compilation, only updating the pages corresponding to the changed data files, but I never got that working.
I think it’ll help to illustrate how bad this program truly is by individually discussing some of the more egregious parts of it.
For those of you who aren’t familiar with the “apstring” string library, here’s a hint: ap stands for Advanced Placement. That’s right, instead of using a standard, widely used string library (like “string.h”), I used the apstring library (by the College Board), because that’s what we were taught in class. It was just like a real string library, only it didn’t have as many features. Frankly, there’s no excuse for its existence, as tests should conform to reality and not the other way around. If you ever see it in production code, you should run like hell.
output < < ch;
Yes, you really are looking at a character-by-character copy of a file. Never mind that there's an OS function to do this in one line (and much more efficiently, I might add). But the reason I did it this way is even worse than the way I did it, if that’s possible: I wanted a second copy of the file so I could parse through the original string-by-string, and then when I hit upon a page that was a subpage of another page, I would consult this copy to find out what its parent page was. This was to get around the problem of not being able to have two file handles open to the same file. I suppose the concept of just loading the whole file into memory and parsing through that didn’t occur to me. And notice the hard-coded file names; that’s a nice touch.
Read the rest of this entry »