clean code

redpill me on this
is it meme? is it worth it?

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    time for a retro!

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the compiler optimizes it anyway

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    its for morons who want to apply patterns instead of solving problems

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the compiler optimizes it anyway

      it's nothing to do with either optimizations or design patterns, noreader nocoder cniles

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >it's nothing to do with either optimizations or design patterns, noreader nocoder cniles

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    generally good advice, even if some of it seems obvious. just keep in mind Uncle Bob always goes heavily overboard with how/where you should use it, and his particular code examples are awful, so just get the general idea and apply the practices with reason
    don't bother with TDD

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      what is the Uncle Bob's authority on this
      what are his works and contributions?
      what is his crediblity on this topic?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        what are yours?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          i sniffed over 4 female anuses

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pedants and gatekeepers will shit on this book, but if the alternative is writing shitty monolithic pajeet diarhea, sure.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    there's no such thing as clean code. you'll never accomplish it

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it's right about some things and completely moronic about others (muh 4 line functions) also in theory it's a generalist book but it feels heavily tailored for OOP which was the fad at the time it was written. Just read it and draw your own conclusions homosexual

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Think critically, what is the opposite of clean code? Now do a search how you spot and measure both clean and dirty code.

    The result is always vague and open for interpretation. This book is a complete waste of time and money.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    if you can read your code cursiveliy and understand what it does as you read, you shoud be good

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >clean code
    BULLSHIT

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    > Name your variables
    > Break things up if they're too long
    > Make the code self-explanatory
    > Don't take it too far and have a moronic number of abstractions
    Saved you $40

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The lessons are generally good when applied within reason. The reason people hate this book is because autistic morons take all the advice super litterally and either complain that the book is bad, or become a pain in the ass for the people they work with by insisting on the lessons from the book like a pedant.

    For example, Uncle bob likes to write many methods or functions that are no more than 10 lines long. If youre an autistic moron, you might get dogmatic about this and end up writing a ton of shitty code. Or you might recognize this is ridiculous, and disregard entirely the very good idea of splitting up your code into reasonable units of function or work.

    So if youre a sperg, probably best to not read this book, and read martin fowlers book refactoring instead.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    none of the ideas in it are particularly original even when it was first published.
    The basic gist is follow *a* style guide, write automatic tests for your damn code, keep shit simple, and split things up when they could require input from multiple "forces of change" like dependencies updating, customers changing their minds, or data being restructured.
    Write tests for what you expect (if you expect nothing, then don't write any), write code to pass the tests, and then refactor once it's working and keep it working.

    It's all stupidly obvious now, and in his book he goes way too far on the examples and all it does is fricking confuse people. Don't buy, it sucks, just take the essence and leave the corpse alone.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    all prpgramming books are worthless

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not worth it. As has been pointed out in the thread already, there are some good principles in the book. There are also some bad. The good ones are all common sense and can be read on any of about four hundred thousand different websites.

      There are some good ones, usually language specific

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No there aren't, you're a moronic cattle who cannot think critically, never solved even simplest problems independently, and your code looks like a piece of utter crap no matter how many style guides you will follow.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          > you're a moronic cattle who cannot think critically, never solved even simplest problems independently, and your code looks like a piece of utter crap no matter how many style guides you will follow.
          Yes so? There are still good programming books

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            no there aren't, you cannot name even one

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sure I can. Learning Perl, for example, is a good programming book. If you are new to perl, that is. Sure, you can find all that stuff on the internet, but especially for perl it's kind of spread out, and if you're learning a new language it may be a good idea to start with a single reference.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Perl is worthless, obsolete language, if I needed it I'd just read a manual.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            anon, it's literally on every single machine. are you really going to write bash scripts for everything?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            when bash isn't enough I'll use a real language, not a regextroony nonsense

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >regextroony

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            yes, regextroony, pcre is a tumor

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I can make code that looks beautiful or I can create fast shit that works. Your choice.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We had some external devs that preached clean code but their variable names became entire paragraphs in the name of "self documenting code", which to me works counterproductively because it leads to massive visual clutter making shit hard to read.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      mfw self documenting code is when hungarian notation

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Hungarian Notation was never about intent, like self-documenting code is.

        HN was about symbol typing (and scoping, visibility etc) BECAUSE there were no decent IDEs that provided any level of intellisense outside of some basic syntax highlighting.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I use vim with like 3 lines in .vimrc and never needed any IDE nor hungarian notation.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Then you never worked on software complex enough to warrant it.

            Good for you, I guess?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            there's no software in this world where it makes a difference

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There's no software in this world which you've ever touched* that makes a difference

            Talk to me once you help build/maintain actual software, like enterprise applications.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >muh enterprise
            tell me what that ever did for anyone

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous
          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I accept your concession.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          you're making shit up. hungarian notation is an anachronism from early fortran, which would implicitly give a variable a type based on the first letters of its name.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't. HN was very common practice 20 years ago in languages like C and C++.

            And yes of course early FORTRAN is a different beast (and not even the topic of discussion), because it had functional implications.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            yes and it was an anachronism, much like the single-return principle

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            more like single return cope, dogshit languages like C are unmaintainable otherwise

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            what a dumb post

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            go write another fizzbuzz or something while adults are talking

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            return szSuckMyDick;

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >0

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This, among other things. The rule I found to be more valuable is to aim for situations where you can get away with short (possibly single-letter) variable names. That is enabled by small scope, descriptive types, and keeping code general where possible.
      This should not be confused with premature abstraction! Rather, a combination two somewhat general functions for familiar concepts is often easier to grasp than some hyper-specialized piece of code which does only what's needed.
      In cases where you can't get away with short names, by all means, make them long.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >mention on "agility"
    It's utter shit, I guarantee it.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I just wish it had been written by someone competent.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >is it a meme
    sort of

    >is it worth it
    100%

    CC is a must-read for every software developer who takes himself seriously.

    It's not a holy bible you should follow to the letter (like some uncle bob-zealots try to make it out to be). But it contains overall good programming advice you should be aware of (and practice where applicable) to write maintainable and thus scaleable software.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      not everyone is a midwit who cannot clean up his own code

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >t. never worked on a real-world project with other devs and actual business requirements

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          business requirements:
          >censorship
          >exploitation of end users
          >exploitation of (You)
          I'm so sorry that my moral compass isn't broken.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Whatever pays your bills, anon.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            your taxes do, keep working

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is there any good tl;dr article or video of this book?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      yes

      see

      none of the ideas in it are particularly original even when it was first published.
      The basic gist is follow *a* style guide, write automatic tests for your damn code, keep shit simple, and split things up when they could require input from multiple "forces of change" like dependencies updating, customers changing their minds, or data being restructured.
      Write tests for what you expect (if you expect nothing, then don't write any), write code to pass the tests, and then refactor once it's working and keep it working.

      It's all stupidly obvious now, and in his book he goes way too far on the examples and all it does is fricking confuse people. Don't buy, it sucks, just take the essence and leave the corpse alone.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you'd be better served reading stuff by john ousterhout, chuck moore, rob pike, and abelson & sussman

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It predates fuzzing, so is outdated.
    >someone tries to sell me software
    Did you fuzz it?
    >someone asks for my code review
    Did you fuzz it?
    >someone asks for help debugging his code
    Did you fuzz it?
    If the answer is no, tell them to call you back when they've fuzzed it.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *