What Workplace Coding Practices Do You Use? 682
Agent_9191 asks: "Recently I've been promoted to what essentially amounts to a project lead role for every project we do, in house. Since my company has run for the past 35+ years with no form of central IT department, there has been no standards put into place for developers to abide by. One of my tasks is to set up standards in how projects will be implemented and produced. Right now I'm more concerned about trying to set up coding standards, so that any developer can jump into any part of a project and be able to figure out what's going on, without wasting a couple hours just to figure out the code. I've come across some documents in this area from a few sources (of course can't remember them off the top of my head). What practices/standards do you use in your workplace?"
Comments (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Comments (Score:5, Informative)
And make sure they update comments if changes necessitate it. There's nothing worse than reading through a function's description, complete with well-documented inputs/outputs/conditions/etc. and finding out that those things no longer apply because somebody changed a 1 to a 2.
Re:Comments (Score:3, Insightful)
You shouldn't be using magic numbers anyway - use a #define so that the comments and code stay the same regardless of what the value happens to be.
Instead of
function(1);
try
#define LOAD_DATA 1
function(LOAD_DATA);
Then you don't need to care what LOAD_DATA is.
#defun is sooo 70s... (Score:4, Informative)
enum {LOAD_DATA, SAVE_DATA, DESTROY_DATA}
Paul B.
P.S. And of course my all-caps enum values were considered too lame by lameness filter...
Re:#defun is sooo 70s... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Comments (Score:3, Insightful)
The general theory of coding practices: Don't be a moron.
In addition... (Score:5, Insightful)
More importantly: Don't be too clever.
It's when people try to get clever in their coding that it gets hard to read. And, quite frankly, that's the code that generally breaks most easily.
Re:Comments (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Comments (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Comments (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Comments lie (Score:3, Insightful)
Comments lie. Code never lies.
Re:Comments lie (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Comments lie (Score:3, Insightful)
I once came across a ~1400 line function of complex maths transformations with one comment
i++ /* increment i */
What's i? and more importantly why increment it?
looong functions (Score:5, Informative)
This is so fucking wrong and wicked the programmer who did it should go straight to hell. I'm sure there's no functional coesion in there: most likely there are many disparate tasks that should be each in its own function and called from there. I'm sure there is a lot of cut-n-paste in there that should be each in its own function and called from there.
I'm sure you can guess where i'm willing to get to... more important than hungarian notation, comments or documentation in PDF format is abiding for these 2 simple rules: KISS -- keep it simple, stupid -- and DRY -- don't repeat yourself. Once you do it, coding and reading code is a lot easier.
So, my advice:
* Give meaningful names to important, global, business rules variables ( local variables like i or c are ok, since they are mostly irrelevant ) or functions/methods/procedures/subroutines
* Write short, highly coesive functions/methods/procedures/subroutines
* Stop the cut-n-paste madness! If you do it a lot, it's obvious the copied code if begging to be parametrized and be given a name. Programmers altering your original code will be thankful
* Write modular code, not a plain, huge, stupid monolithic wall of letters. Even in languages with no namespace support ( C/PHP etc ) a good naming convention for functions of a certain module/header can do wonders...
* and please: meaningful names don't mean phrase-like names like thisLocalVariableIsCool. Conciseness go a long way towards good readability...
Re:Comments lie (Score:3, Insightful)
Comments can lie, and code never lies about what it does, but code doesn't tell you anything at all about what the author intended it to do. The comments are more likely to give you a hint, and at the very least if the comments and the code agree, you can probably be sure it's right. When the comments and the code disagree then you know that at least one of them is wrong.
Re:Comments (Score:5, Insightful)
Write clean code that can be easily understood by reading it. That is, good variable and function names, try not to make any absurdly complicated statements, and have your comments explain the logic of the operations. As for style, try to stick with the style that the original author started with. And finally, all people who use Hungarian notation are locked in the basement and given menial tasks until they repent their sinful ways.
I hope this helps.
Re:Comments (Score:4, Interesting)
There is lots more to coding standards than just comments and style. Where I work, portability and maintainence are of high concern too. Certain rules, like no hard-coded values such as 563, allow for much better code maintainence. Other rules, like in C/C++ never using an int for any value other than 0-127, and never using a char for anything other than text characters, allow for code portability. These are just some of the rules. If your product is designed for one environment, you may have different coding standards. In the past, we have gotten together as a software team and reviewed other standards found online and combined the likes and the like-nots to create our own, tailored for our industry and requirements.
Style is good for readability and also for consistency. Requiring spaces before and after operators like = and + help in reading complex lines. Parens () help also. Setting requirements for function bracing (or what goes on a line, depending on the language), and tabbing help multiple programmers understand and easily see the program flow of others.
Anyone who protests that they like their own style better because they can read it eaiser (while everyone else can't) shouldn't be working for you. Team players are needed. We've resolved many such arguments satisfactorily in the past by simply putting it to a vote. And those team players gracefully accepted the majority.
Re:Comments (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Comments (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Comments (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe instead these people can be requested to write programs that reformat the written code from their style to the company standard style. They should do this, of course, on their own time at home.
No magic numbers in the code is a good idea. Especially for embedded systems code where there are lots of configuration registers in t
Re:Comments (Score:5, Insightful)
Write clean code that can be easily understood by reading it. That is, good variable and function names, try not to make any absurdly complicated statements, and have your comments explain the logic of the operations. As for style, try to stick with the style that the original author started with. And finally, all people who use Hungarian notation are locked in the basement and given menial tasks until they repent their sinful ways
Well that's a good start, with good intentions, but you need to have a standard definition of what constitutes good function names and good variable names. If you have 5 different programmers on a project, you'll have 5 different opinions on what good names are.
Make sure your coding standards are DOCUMENTED.
If it's a java project, the best source would be Sun's java coding standards. A very useful tool for this is Checkstyle. [sourceforge.net] You can decide which rules to enforce (some of the ones enabled by default are more annoying than anything) but if you take the time to get your code to where Checkstyle likes it, you'd be amazed how easy it is for humans to read.
As for my department, we use CVS for version control.
Every time code is checked into CVS, it is formatted by Jalopy. So, it'll look nice and neat the next time it's checked out.
Also, we have a script that does nightly builds, and then emails the result to everybody on the team. So if you checked in something that breaks the build, everybody knows about it the following morning.
We have a regular release schedule. All work is done on the main CVS branch, but when it's time for a code freeze, the new version is branched off and tagged in CVS. During QA testing, bugs are fixed in the branch and the mainline. New features are only added to the mainline.
When we are ready to deploy, we tag the release in CVS. The deployment script checks the tag out of CVS, builds it, and packages everything up into the relevant
This is all a very strict process, but things rarely fall through the cracks this way. If you don't have any processes in place now, it's best to implement them a step at a time. Get everybody used to working with CVS or some other version control, get them used to the notion of tagging and branching, and make sure there's actually a document detailing whatever processes you have.
And lastly, have code reviews every week or two. Review a different person's code each time and make sure everybody on the team is allowed to have input. If you're not at the coding stage yet, have design reviews.
Re:Comments (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, have a simple set of automated test scripts and require that every change must build and pass all of the scripts before being checked in. Also have a more in-depth set of test scripts that are run on a regular basis, and make sure that failures are fixed. Finally, make sure that you have a test org in charge of maintaining the scripts and adding new ones, so that your code doesn't become 'immune' to your tests.
Re:Comments (Score:4, Interesting)
So what if they are not all uniformly named? Has anybody actually seen a code base where it's possible to call a random function in a class without looking at documentation or the header file? As long as it's an informative name - and code reviews should flag bad ones - you should save your fight for something that actually matters.
Guidelines on naming, on the other hand, is a great idea. Clubbing smart developers over the head for this is pointless.
if you take the time to get your code to where Checkstyle likes it, you'd be amazed how easy it is for humans to read.
One of the myths of software engineering, IMO, is that code is hard to read. For a competent programmer, code is *not* hard to read, in the sense that it's pretty easy to figure out what the code is doing. The problem is what the code is attempting to do, and possibly why. This is why brace styles, spaces versus tabs, and other "low level" coding standards do very little except to annoy. I've worked at several companies, each with different coding conventions, and I follow most of them. Unfortunately, I've found little relationship between maintainability and adherence to coding standards.
Re:Comments (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Question about Hungarian Notation (Score:3, Interesting)
the problem is not when you look at intPositionSensorReading but rather when it has been changed to a decimal, or when you need to change it to a decimal suddenly you are either wasting time editing every piece of code using that variable. or you cause incorrect comments to be all over the code.
IFF VB would enforce and automate hungarian notation as an option it would be useful (i use VB as the example because it is the only place i ha
Re:Question about Hungarian Notation (Score:5, Insightful)
// the old c style
if(cur == last) rec->tag = name;
// camel case
if(currentKey == lastEntry) Record->keyTag = userName;
// hungarian
if(iCurrentKey == iLastEntry) prRecord->m_pszKeyTag = pszUserName;
Now imagine discussing them with your coworker. Imagine thinking in your head "What should I do if prRecord->m_pszKeyTag is NULL?" Humans are good at symbolic manipulation. Giving something a name makes it easier to deal with. Giving something a label that cannot be easily manipulated in language (spoken or in your head) severely hampers the ability to think it through.
The argument for Hungarian is usually "but it lets you know what the variables are". This is the maintainance programmer argument. This argument rarely makes sense in reality, unless some very bad programming is involved. First of all, if you do not understand the current code you are about to modify, you should *not* be modifying it. If your maintainance programmer is just going to have a look at two lines of code, add a third in the middle, and hope for the best then you are truly fucked. He has obviously not understood the code enough to know what the consequences of the modification will be. The reality is, if your current logic unit is such a monstrosity that looking up the types of your variables is a burden, and your variable names are so poor that it is insufficient to infer at least a basic understanding of what is going on without having to resort to prepending types, you should probably step away from the keyboard, turn off your computer, and tell your boss that you had an epiphany and will be pursuing a career in French fry development.
Re:Comments (Score:3, Interesting)
Pragmatic (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Comments (Score:5, Interesting)
The best advice I ever got was to write "why", not "what" a piece of code does.
See? Completely useless. Let's try again:
Ah, much better! Any Computer Science peon knows that "counter++" increments counter. What they might not know is why. Those simple bits of "why" comments can make reading code so much easier.
Organizational comments (those that delineate what chunks of code inside of a method do) can be helpful, too. (Ex: "// Normalize string", "Encode string", "Send String") They make narrowing in on a particular "task" performed in a method even easier.
Other than that, however, the biggest and most persistent and most annoying problem I have is poorly-engineered code. Some people just do not know how to apply their college degrees. I wish CS degrees had a bigger emphasis in software engineering. Would you hire an architect who couldn't design anything bigger than a porta-potty? Why does the CS industry get away with doing the same thing?
Code cleanly and remove comment (Score:5, Insightful)
messages_processed++;
This actually makes sense without the comment.
Re:Code cleanly and remove comment (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Comments (Score:4, Funny)
Documents... There is no documents. Who needs those anyways? It's much more fun to code something when you really don't have any idea what its supposed to do.
Test plans? Nah, waste of time I say!
Testing? Well, somebody runs it and if it doesn't crash, it works.
I must say I'm in the best damn work place ever! And now if you please, I'll go and find some ethernet cabel to strangle myself.
Re:Comments (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, IMHO, those are bad comments. Too much commenting, while not as bad as too little commenting, is still a problem. Writing too many comments is not only time consuming for the developer, but it makes it harder to find the important comments in the sea of crap. Also, if the program is modified, all the comments must be changed as well. This can be a tedious and time consuming process for large projects.
Personally, I try to use comments for parts in the code that might be confusing. Even for a novice programmer, code like if(x == 456) is self-explanatory, no comments are needed. But complicated statements involving many different variables from different parts of the file may be confusing, and likewise merit comments. Also, comments with input/output or precondition/postcondition for functions might not be a bad idea either.
Use comments when you need them, but don't write so many comments that they become useless.
Re:Comments (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right - how could it be possible not to know what that code is doing? (The rule is, the only magic numbers allowed are -1, 0, and 1. 456 is right out.)
But then again, don't worry, everything should be clear [thedailywtf.com], right? :)
Re:Comments (Score:5, Funny)
You're right - how could it be possible not to know what that code is doing? (The rule is, the only magic numbers allowed are -1, 0, and 1. 456 is right out.)
Okay, but that's going to get really hard to debug!
if (x == (1+1)*(1+1+1+1)*((1+1+1+1)*(1+1+1+1)*(1+1+1+1)-(1
Re:Comments (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Comments (Score:3, Informative)
1) Don't use variable names like x, use something that indicates the meaning of the variable - so maybe in this case lErrorStatus
2) Don't hardcode magic values, use a meaningful constant - which also means only one point in code needs to be changed if we switch CPU and find there is a different on-fire code
Then we get
if lErrorStatus == CPU_ON_FIRE then
Which I think is pretty self-explanatory.
One thing that isn't clear yet is whether this bit of code is sitting in a little function
partially agree (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Comments (Score:5, Insightful)
People forget that code itself is a language. And usually a much more clear and logical one than English. Requirements docs are for explaining complex business processes and code itself explains most of what is going on. That is not to say that comments are not important, but when they exist I want them to be there for a reason. Anyone reading your code is assumed to be conversive, if not fluent in the code language, so comments should explain things such as:
Comments that merely "translate" basic code language into english are at the very least useless and often harmful: they bloat the filesize, obfuscate executable lines (I have deleted blocks of apparent comments only to find that unit tests are subsequently failing - the reason? - a single line of executable was buried between 2 dozen lines of commented out code), increase the burden on the maintainer and/or reader who must sort out the important details from the quotes laid down by Capt. Obvious.
Re:Comments (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Comments (Score:3, Insightful)
{
}
this is bad code and no amount of commenting is going to fix it. It begs 2 questions; What is x and why 465? I would recode it as something like this that makes the purpose clear enough that no comments are needed:
const int screenWidth = 456;
if(xCoordinate == screenWidth)
{
}
this way I type more code but less comments.
Re:Comments (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Comments (Score:3, Insightful)
I would say a good comment (that is, a comment that I would find useful) for that piece of code would tell you why the statement was important, what is it going to accomplish, and if needed why was it writen the way it was. For your code my questions when reading it would be "why 456?" and "what is going to happen in the following block(s) of code?".
Re:Comments (Score:5, Insightful)
Comments should concentrate on "why" not on "what." A machine can figure out "what," so a programmer should be able to do that too (eventually). No machine has a clue as to "why" though.
Any time I'm reading through my code and I can't remember why I did something, it's a red flag - that needs a comment. If the code doesn't look like it's needed, but it really is, you need to put in a comment explaining why it's there.
"What" comments should be reserved for the top of a function or largish body of code.
Re:Comments (Score:5, Informative)
Is this supposed to be a joke??! Both of them are worst comments, because they only formulate in english what the code already says by itself. Everyone can see that this is an if-statement, everyone is able to identify the condition, and everyone knows the semantics of an if-statement.
A good comment is not describing what is done (since everybody can see that from the code itself), a good comment describes why something is done, or what the overall objective of the statement is.
For example:
This is ways more useful. Even more useful would be to already use self-describing symbol names in the code itself, like
Re:Comments (Score:3, Insightful)
I looked at that if statement and wanted to know why 486? Why does it execute that block if x is 486? That is what the comment should do.
That said I really need to comment my own code better than I do
Re:Comments (Score:5, Informative)
Amen to that.
In addition to the original comments being redundant, there's also the issue of the code and the comments getting out of sync...
The company I work for just wrote up a formal coding standard, which includes everything from a guide to our internal hungarian notation, indentation guidelines, and even which C++ features/paradigms are supported, frowned upon, or not allowed. All the coders got a chance to send in feedback before it was finalized, and we even ended up with a list of recommended reading on the subject, including:
The idea is to keep the code readable and maintainable with the least amount of re-invention of the wheel. With good coding practices, it's easier to avoid bugs in your own code and spot them in others (reviews are also a big plus on both counts). And it gets any religious battles out of the way up front, so you don't have to waste time bickering later on.
Re:Comments (Score:5, Insightful)
If you write the code first, then annotate, you fall into two traps: "What the heck was that variable for?" forgetfulness, and "It works so stop messing with it" laziness.
Re:Comments (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why Design Documents are so important. For those sitting there thinking "// checks if x == y then proceeds" is a good comment, the rest of us call this "comment first" idea "planning". It has been working well for coding since the begining and has worked for other things for centuries if not millenia. The most frightening thing to think when handed old code is "My god! They never had more than a meeting of planning for this pile!" Bad or a
Re:Comments (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have prelimary docs, then just open them in a text editor and cut-n-paste from them as you go. How hard is that? Don't tell me you're one of those who writes a design doc, only looks at it rarely and imagines "I remember it all" (I'm hoping you're not, you seem smarter than
Re:Comments (Score:5, Funny)
That line still contains an example of one of my biggest pet peeves... the use of magic numbers. Okay, so the comment explains what 456 is, but not why and makes no provision for managing changes. What if a new design had a stepper motor whose final position was 256?
Magic numbers are a reality, of course, especially when dealing with hardware. But if there's no way for the code to dynamically determine the values, the very least you can do is to define a symbolic constant, and collect the constant definitions together in one place. For example:
See how much better that is? And if the value changed to, say 100, all you have to do is modify the constant definition in one place, like:
Really, a little extra work up front goes a long way.
Re:Comments (Score:5, Funny)
if x==456 then
That way, there's less chance for confusion if the code gets modified in the future.
Re:Comments (Score:4, Funny)
Joel on Software (Score:5, Informative)
Programming Standards (Score:5, Insightful)
- Get a development database, a testing database and production database. Yes, you need all three.
- Write a few docs explaining each system. Make these are detailed as you possibly can. (This will save you weeks in the long term)
- Use software revision control. CVS, VSS, whatever, use one.
- Use a bug tracker. BugZilla, Jira, CityDesk, whatever, use one.
- Use whatever coding standards the language reckons you should. If java, use sun's standards. If microsoft, use their standards.
- Write automated unit tests. I don't care if you're not an agile or XP developer, write unit tests. Check out Junit, or Nunit, or just write your own.
- Setup some code so that you can check out ALL code from the source code repository and compile it by ONE COMMAND. Eg, "make" or "ant" or "maven" or whatever. This will take time but is worth it.
- Have a naming standard for database tables. This will make your life SOOOO much easier.
- Read thedailywtf.com and don't do anything that is posted there.
- Write specs for your new developers. Please write specs for your new developers. Don't just say to them 'fix this up'.
- Make sure code isn't hard-coded to a particular directory. Everyone does this. Fix it. (Might be part of step 7)
- Create your own standard config files.
- Have code reviewed by peers. Don't be a bastard but be nice when picking on people's code.
- As mentioned, comment your code but use the language standard. Java - javadocs, Perl - perldocs, etc. These are cool, but don't get too carried away. Nothing can replace a good spec.
- Ignore what most people say on Slashdot. (Except for me, of course).
That'll keep you busy for a couple of months! Doing thiswill make you well on the way to having a pretty high level of coding quality. Most companies don't do all of them. Good luck.Re:Programming Standards (Score:4, Interesting)
6.a Formalize the testing process by people other than the original developers.
6.b Write test cases.
6.c Do regression testing. Especially for "transperant to the user" changes.
8.a Have a naming standard for table columns. This will make your life SOOOO much easier.
11.a Where you do need hardcoded directories, externalize the locations in configuration files.
Re:Programming Standards (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Use a code reviewer like FxCop for
2. Automate as much as possible with things like Ant or NAnt. The less people do, the less room for errors or discrepancies from project to project.
3. Use something like Cruise Control
4. Make a Utility library so that they have a common place to get repeta
Re:Programming Standards (Score:3, Interesting)
Something else I've found useful (which I think I got from a McConnell or Maguire book) is the idea of priorities in your coding, which should be part of your coding standards. That is, take a set of features/aspects of code like this:
...and then put them in order of priority for each project you work on. The order will vary depending on the project, but a lot of coders will program with the s
Re:Joel on Software (Score:5, Interesting)
Plus, he argues passionately for paying programmers well & giving them exciting projects, but in at least two cases he hired interns to start his company's most interesting apps.
Dude needs to work on his street cred.
Help people play to their strengths etc.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Obviously there are other issues such as naming conventions, useful comments etc, which are often neglected in small projects, but become more important as more people work together without wars breaking out!
Find out your teams individual strengths and preferences - there's no point trying to hammer everyone into the same mould - some people will naturally gravitate toward, and excel at certain tasks. It's important for efficiency and general happiness that this is taken into account when allocating resources to a project.
Evolutionary Prototyping (Score:5, Insightful)
It's nearly impossible for me to get final specifications from a user until they've actually seen something. Paper is okay in a pinch, but a semi-functioning web application is worth a thousand meetings.
Re:Evolutionary Prototyping (Score:4, Interesting)
What's amazing is that you can say that in two sentences, and most web developers here will completely get what you mean... and that traditional managers (of developers) will get incredible hives and seriously rethink your annual bonus for uttering such heresy.
My favorite flavor of Not Getting This are the managers or customers that want you to mock up some screen shots for discussion, and are happy to pay for you to do so in Visio, or a paint program, etc... but if you instead actually whip together some HTML-based forms (much of which can eventually go towards further prototyping or actual use), you've opened the door to arguments over charges for having "jumped the gun" on the programming cycle. Never mind that I can produce conceptual mockups that actually render on a browser faster than by most any other means. But since a cheesy little pull-down-generating server-side script is "programming," there's PHB-fodder about having already done dev work before all of the requirements are described. Oh well. I'd rather write off a chunk of the project's proceeds than try to hammer out all of the requirements on paper first. In real life, with projects that must go from "I saw this thing when I checked out at Amazon" to being functionally bolted onto an existing web presence in a matter of a dozen man-hours, that's frequently impossible.
My boss doesn't care (Score:4, Funny)
Unrealistic expectations (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless you are dealing with trivial projects it will take more than a couple of hours to figure out the code. Even the best documented open source and commercial projects take a few days to figure out.
GOOD code review; Chief Designer at every inspecti (Score:5, Insightful)
And good unit test drivers.
Awesome commentary (both at the top of a package outlining the entire low-level design and at the algorithm level) goes without saying.
Oh yeah, and run spell on your code. I mean, really!
That's Like Scrum... (Score:3, Insightful)
I find that a good standard for code reviews is to assume that the programmer knows what he's doing and I don't
Looking for magic? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is a pipedream. Any project of significant size will require some immersion before a new proj member can get his hands around the particular bit he's trying code/solve.
Standards can be good, but they're not magical. Unless you're trying to generate a group of little robots, everyone has a slightly different style.
A Good Coffee Break (Score:3, Interesting)
GOOMOALMWIP/GOOMCALMWIP (Score:3, Insightful)
or
Get Out Of My Cubicle And Let Me Work In Peace
This applies mostly to the people that come in and have to inform me of their new cat, girlfriend, boyfriend, computer, game, TV, kitchen, car, shoes, and/or midlife crisis (and that's just the top of the list).
A request on the part of the devs under your control: Don't implement a new paradigm every time one comes out. From extreme programming to agile programming, from scrums to design workshops, find something that works in your particular case and stick to it. Your employees will thank you for it (at least in the long run by not planning your demise in the parking lot after the fifth methodology change that quarter).
Works for some companies not others. (Score:3, Interesting)
Second have a Good Data Warehouse try to use Rational Database servers that support Stored Procedures and Triggers, which is dependable. MySQL 5, PostGreSQL, MSSQL, Oracle are all good choices. I would put money to give all the DataBase Servers some good specs and conversly I would put all the data manipulation into Stored Procedures and Stored Functions. Also when creating them give them a prefix to show that they are your companies specialized functions and not built in the Database Server. The Database should give you the data they way that is most convenient for you to use. The reasoning for this is that it normally reduce network traffic to the SQL Server, and allow porting applications to different languages and platforms easier because the data format part is still complete.
Third use have all your apps on your intranet be web based. first it eases deployment and also allows desktops to be upgraded without killing the app every security patch.
So if you make a all your Apps Web Based with the bulk of the calculations on the Database server and having the Web Language handle the User Interface, and depending on you size of you apps a 3 or 4th tear with custom libraries for standardized uses of Interface and data a.
WHAT Standards? (Score:3, Funny)
Coding Practices (Score:5, Insightful)
Experience counts (Score:4, Insightful)
My suggestion is get someone who has done this in a structured and successful environment. Otherwise developers will roll you over and your projects will be late, over budget and buggy.
I have seen it so many times where an internal inexperienced person jumps in the saddle without mentorship and guidance in the areas of software development (NT or UNIX) and systems management not native to the environment. And I have seen how long companies suffer with the problems created by this and how much it costs companies in the end. It makes a $1000 per hour consultant look cheap.
A good example is code management. Very few IT shops have it. Why? No one wants to know who checked in the buggy code! But few developers want such tools, especially the microwave generation. But at least when your caffeine isn't good enough and they move on you will know where the source code is.
Sounds simple? Not really, there are hundreds of issues like the one above. And it can't be taught quickly.
So get a consultant for 6 to 12 months that has done this, listen and learn and you will be off to a fast start.
code complete has some good things to say (Score:5, Informative)
1) document things thoroughly using a tool like doxygen. there is no excuse for interfaces not to be thoroughly documented
2) adopt a standard naming convention. in java, this is easy -- just use the default. in other languages, you'll probably have to make your own up.
3) pick an indentation style. it really doesn't matter which since tools like indent can convert between them almost painlessly. all code that goes into the repository is run through indent to put it into a standard format
4) require that code compile cleanly with no warnings at the most anal retentive compiler settings before it can be checked in unless there are good reasons to ignore the compiler warnings
5) average devs are only able to commit to the "head" fork (or equivalent in your sccs). the code is not committed to the "real" fork until it passes whatever tests you have
6) incorporate tools like valgrind into your testing cycle --- they should come back largely clean. if they don't, things need to be fixed unless there's a really good reason not to.
7) people who check in code which breaks cvs or, upon a code review, are found to not sufficiently adhere to your guidelines owe their dev group donuts.
Re:code complete has some good things to say (Score:3, Insightful)
Standards (Score:4, Funny)
-Chris
Doxygen (Score:3, Informative)
Segfault
We don't need no coding standards! (Score:3, Informative)
A few other details that I'd like to add. K&R braces were invented, not by K&R but by the guys who typeset their book. It is a severe roadbump to try and read code where the braces are at the end of an if statement instead of vertically alligned.
Try spinal alignment for variables. Most people align their variables like this:
int something;
void somethingelse;
longobjectname theThirdThing;
Those with more of a clue align them so that you can find the variable name easily in a mess of them:
int something;
void *somethingelse;
longobjectname theThirdThing;
This puts some major space in some cases between names and short type declarations. Try aligning them like this:
The problem with this technique is that, if you ever post your code on Slashdot, you'll have to replace spaces with dots and spend fifteen minutes trying to get it to render correctly because SD doesn't support a simple PRE tag.
Other tidbits that have helped. camelNotation rules. Don't use hungarian notation, it doesn't work in a severely object oriented enviornment. Instead, preceed your variables with a single letter that tells you where it's declared. l for local, m for member (of a class or struct), g for global, that kind of thing. I've seen "my" used for member and "the" used for static very effectively, also, but stick to one.
Most of all, good luck. Remember that a lot of people's beliefs in this matter have no foundation except for what they've been doing for years. I have faith in my standards simply because I've seen what happens when you don't follow them, and that's mostly confusion.
Peer Review Often (Score:3, Insightful)
Establish regular peer reviews: regular, as in daily; and not just when the library is finished and ready for delivery.
Peer reviews encourage developers to describe what they're doing and why they're doing it (not just conceptually, but at the code level) so deeper awareness of whole systems is fostered.
This can lead to projects with less redundancy, and greater integration. It also helps ensure that code will pass any human driven acceptance tests that the commisioning agent may stipulate.
An additional benefit is that utilisation estimates are improved because as developers get better at describing what they're doing, they become better at describing what they plan/need to do.
The canny manager will schedule the peer-review session 30 mins before lunch, recognizing that it gives developers something to discuss as a group whilst eating.
Worry about what not to do, too (Score:5, Insightful)
The moral of the story?
A. You are not the font of wisdom. If very lucky, you are the point of the pen. Rule carefully.
B. Don't make standards based on what you learned in school. Base them on what you learned in real life.
C. If an Old Fart tells you that one of your edicts is stupid, don't assume that they're resistant to change just for the sake of being crotchety. Maybe they learned something useful over all those years and all those lines of code.
Standards (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the most important policy is to slap the guy that says, "I like tabs more than spaces" or "I don't like the way you indent" or "I hate the way you put spaces around ('s".
Honestly? These people have too much free time. People use a variety of conventions and I've seen pretty much all of them. As a senior developer, I just take everyone's idiosyncracies in stride, even when they name variables retarded things like: n, vt, pkq, and rsptln.
If I can deduce what they are doing easily, it is no problem. If I cannot, I make them explain it. If they are not around anymore, problem solved. I rewrite or have their stuff rewritten in a good way, since the stuff was 99% likely to be utter crap anyway, and move on without a moments hesitation.
I've worked on a lot of large codebases and I've never encountered this idea of, OMG this code is so archaic that I cannot possibly decipher this person's intent--and believe me, I've worked on some crazy ancient crap. My obligatory developer arrogrance leads me to state that people that cannot figure out code because of coding conventions are weak developers. Anyone that has slogged through the convoluted "efficiency" of Knuth or the a,b,c,i,j,k madness of Wirth can figure shit out.
So anyway, if you have the authority and your people are actually willing to go along with a standard without a huge hullabaloo, then just pick any standard (you'll get way more mileage from just sticking to a consistent convention no matter what it is). If people are going to make a big deal of it and it is difficult to enforce, just deal with it individually and tell people to write sane things. Their coworkers will provide quite good feedback if they are producing shit, and that's where you really need to step into your lead role and work out a resolution.
One of your best tools for a standard is to create automation to enforce it. Get yourself some prettyprint scripts that you have run on all source that is checked in--in fact, get your developers the same tool so they can run it on what they check out to print it the way they like it. (Of course, you only want to check the source in with the standard pretty printing or diffs become atrocious, but that's technical stuff for a different discussion.)
Bottom line is that whatever you can automate in the way of conventions is a win because then it's completely automatic, difficult to bicker about (two coworkers can't very well bicker at each other when it's the prettyprinter's fault, so they can only come to you and you have authority to resolve the issue right quick, whereas they could just engage each other in an endlessly unproductive slugfest if they are coding by the convention of their opinion), and if people want a change it goes through you and you have a strong argument for--"if it isn't broke, don't fix it".
Kind of a ramble, but after many years this is my take on standards. Use a convention if it is convenient. If not, play it a bit more loose, but be firm on snuffing out those annoying neverending debate situations.
That said, one factor that is relevant is the type of work you are doing. I'm assuming from what you said that you have some flexibility to structure as you like. If for instance you were subject to government or other agency auditing (my current company is), then the loose method is not going to fly, but on the other hand, you would probably already know what conventions you needed becaus
Geek minds (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone commented that the difference between Microsoft and Google is that Microsoft programmers are holding concepts the size of "If...Then...Else" and Google programmers are holding concepts the size of Bayesian filtering; thus, Google's Geeks are better at making big, coherent plans without getting lost in the details. It's not 100% true across the board, but it's an insight.
As a Project Manager, then, your job is to:
1. Allow your Geeks to transfer the concepts from the screen/page/whiteboard into their heads; and
2. Allow your Geeks to hold those ideas easily once they've got them.
Step 1 is a bandwidth issue: make the "inputs" more efficient by, for example, giving all of them dual-head monitors and high speed printers, so they can get lots of code into a usable format for reading (some of us prefer printouts; others just need vi/Emacs and a flicker-free monitor). Step 2 is a quality issue: Geeks who have to hide in headphones or run away to the park to read because of ringing phones and nagging managers are NOT going to be able to do their job.
And with any data pipe, throughput is more a function of time rather than pressure. So your dream of getting your programmers up to speed in minimum time really is -- pardon the pun -- a pipe dream. They won't be any use to you if they don't have the time to learn the systems they're working on.
I recommend the Mercury project model (Score:3, Insightful)
compiler for a declarative programming language
comprising some half a million lines of code. The
project has been running for over ten years with
multiple developers working at any given time, some
of which are in different locations.
Key aspects of the development model are:
(1) Use a good source code control system (we use cvs,
but are considering svn).
(2) Add at least one test case for every piece of
functionality you add to the system and for every bug
that is discovered during use.
(3) Use a robust, automated build-and-test system.
(4) All code changes should (a) compile, (b) not break
any test cases, and (c) -this is vital- pass peer
review on a mailing list.
(5) All code should be adequately documented. Every
change should be accompanied by a log message explaining
the rationale for the change and what the changes were
and a unified source code diff.
(6) Have a common coding standard for things like
naming, layout, commenting, and preferred idioms.
Shoot any coders that use more than 79 columns in
their code.
Avoid complexity and cleverness unless it is absolutely
warranted.
(7) Code should check all error conditions. Exceptions
are rarely a good error reporting mechanism.
(8) Have nightly builds and test runs.
(9) Your watchwords should be discipline, cleanliness,
simplicity.
-- Ralph
Never comment! (Score:5, Funny)
-USe tons and tons of goto statements.
-Make sure you use particular letters capped for variables of different types to make them more confusing for the losers who can't read the code and remember what each one was.
- always make calls by reference using pointers as arguments. Don't use call by values.
- Hell user other pointers that use other pointers to make things more interesting. Reassign them all over the place
- Never use a three tier model when developing client/server apps. This only creates redundancy and gets in the way of solving the problem.
- When linking to a database always use vendor specific extensions and avoid a database layer using something like odbc. It makes use of the advanced feature set by the particular RDBMS.
- Be a man! Show how much you know perl. Alot of one linners can save tons of time with exotic line switches
Oh last... make tons of money and gain job security because no one in Earth will be able to understand or work on your projects after doing all of these things. Enjoy
Ahahahahaaa... heh... Snrrrrrkkk. Kidding, right? (Score:5, Informative)
A couple hours???
Look, no offense, but you either only deal in "toy" code, or you have such high expectation that you will fail, and quite spectacularly.
A new coder, even an experienced one, takes days or even weeks after coming into an existing project before he can contribute anything but the most trivial of changes. For a truly massive project, or one that requires intimate domain-specific knowledge in a niche industry, extend that to months.
If you can find a way to get an unfamiliar newcomer up to speed on any "real" project in a matter of hours, consider your talents wasted in your current position.
Fundamental coding truths (Score:5, Insightful)
I recently put together a list of Fundamental Coding Truths after musing about this topic and why it was so hard to plan software development:
1. Software is not at its core a collection of a few clever algorithms.
Rather, it is primarily (in the ways that matter) a huge collection of arbitrary
choices and random implementation details.
The algorithms that consititute the mathematical/logical basis of a piece of software
are an important, but very small (eg: 1%) and relatively very simple part
of the overall code.
2. Code complexity is pretty much exclusively determined by the (combinatorial)
number of interactions between pieces. Each interaction requires at least one decision
and usually many more.
3. Because of #1 and #2, deep, intimate familiarity with the code (this vast
collection of implementation details) is only ever fully knowable to the original
author(s) who made these uncountably many, mostly arbitrary decisions.
(Familiarity by secondary authors/maintainers comes primarily from
re-writting sections of code.)
4. Because of #3, programmers are not interchangeable. The efficiency with
which a person can navigate the code, implement or even imagine changes
is almost entirely determined by how familiar they are with these many, many small
details. The ratio of efficiencies between a primary author and another
equally talented coder is very large (eg: 100). Because of this, the original
authors of a section of code are usually the only ones who are ever able to efficiently
modify or restructure it. This becomes rapidly more true as the the size and
complexity of the code increases.
5. Because of the complexity of code (the number of interactions and interdependencies),
debugging and maintenance constitutes the vast majority (eg: 99.9%) of the work
required by a piece of software over its life.
6. Because of the complexity of code (number of interactions between components), it is
very hard, if not impossible, to predict with any accuracy what will be involved in implementing
a given change. Even for original authors, unintented side effects are almost inevitable, and
the primary determinant of the length and difficulty of a task lies in finding and rectifying
unintented consequences or unforseen interactions. Because of this, the uncertainty in the time
it will take to execute a change is very large.
(eg: 10x range in 95% confidence limit of time estimate, say 1 day-2weeks).
7. Because of the complexity of code, bugs are an inevitable byproduct of writing code. It is hard
to predict how long it will take to find and repair bugs as that depends on how many side effects are
involved, which is not known until the repair is done and "fully tested". The only way to avoid bugs
completely is to not write code. There are things that can minimize bugs or speed up finding/fixing
them, but they will always exist.
For .Net, here is what we use (Score:5, Informative)
VB -
Version Control -
Server: Subversion + Apache
Client: Tortoise SVN (Excellent) [We also use Perforce, CVS, VSS(Commercial apps)]
Continuous Integration - Cruise Control.Net
Intranet, Knowledge Management - DotNetNuke (www.dotnetnuke.com)
Project Management - dotProject (PHP) (www.dotproject.com), MS Project
Unit Testing - NUnit (www.nunit.org)
Standards are irrelevant (Score:3, Insightful)
And you know what? None of us have any trouble at all reading or maintaining each other's code.
Why? Because we're good programmers; because we _care_ about what we are doing, we take a long-term approach, and management judges us by our long-term track record and doesn't look over our shoulders micromanaging how many spaces we indent.
And we all write LOTS of comments, but we comment the things that need to be commented, not just pro-forma and CYA stuff.
You want documentation, not coding standards. (Score:3, Insightful)
Even how you name your variables vs. functions vs. methods vs. objects has very little to do with being able to jump into a project, so long as people are consistent. What's more important, is to maintain good documentation, so that someone has some clue what the relevent files are, and what the overall logic was in how the program / general modules / etc are laid out.
No one is going to be able to jump in and start modifying code on a moment's notice. On a large project, spread across multiple developers, it might take a week or more for someone to have a grasp of what needs to be done, why it's being done the way it is, and what the implications are to change things to the way that they think is better. (I consider unit tests to be a form of documentation -- given a specific input, I expect the given result)
And let's not forget the whole mythical man month -- tossing in another developer at the wrong time may screw up the existing developers if they get pestered by the newbie. That's why I try to keep documentation explaining what the purpose of the project is, known outstanding issues, how the program is laid out, all of those sorts of things that a new developer would need, should I get reassigned, fired, given extra help, or just give up and decide to quit.
A ticket tracking system, and some centralized documentation repository (might be a wiki for multi-person projects) can really help you get a handle on these sorts of things.
If you want actual programming tips
Doxygen (Score:3, Informative)
-everphilski-
Coding standards (Score:3, Interesting)
A developer who does not understand any piece of code does not understand the language and hence is incompetent.
Of course one can write obfuscated code, and developers should be encouraged not to. If your developers are not capable of writing meaningful code in a language, change the language, change the developers, or as a last resort change careers, your company stinks.
Setting coding standards would be the same as restricting the English language to a subset in which, for example, George W Bush would be capable of forming a meaningful and consistent sentence.
Code Complete (Score:3, Informative)
Some of my rules (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Thou shalt NOT make the user re-enter data
2) Waste not clicks for they are precious
3) Thou shall not design a screen that hath no purpose
4) Move not your bits about the screen like a drunken stripper
5) Gulp not your data but merely sip... as it makes reguritation less lumpy
6) That which the user doeth the most, shall not be obscurred by that which he doeth least
7) Dress not your screens with vain and lustful colors that are without purpose
8) The user is the one true god and thou shall hold no gods before the user
9) The user is a friggin idiot
10) An image that measures 16 pixels across and 16 pixels along it's length is rarely worth one word
G
Good way to get rid of your best staff... (Score:3, Interesting)
Domain Driven Design (Score:3, Informative)
For that you need an understandable design and the best advice I've ever seen for that is in Eric Evens' "Domain Driven Design" http://domaindrivendesign.org/ [domaindrivendesign.org]. The advice there will work for both Agile and non-Agile projects and its core themes are pretty much unavoidable truths about how to write code for a project that is also written about the project: use language that comes from the projects domain, insulate code from each domain or sub-domain from the rest of the world, keep each method at the same level of abstraction (that's big) and make implicit concepts explicit, to name a few. The key is for your developers to consider themselves to be authors and to strive to keep each little piece of code they write on-topic. Not only will it be easier for new developers to come up to speed but the code will work a heck of a lot better too.
Coding standards (Score:5, Funny)
As someone with 20+ years of professional programming under my belt, a lot of it doing maintenance and enhancement of existing code, I'll say this: most of what's considered "coding standards" doesn't much matter. Indentation, brace positioning, type prefixes on variables, underlines vs. StudlyCaps, capitalization in general, most competent programmers can pick up on any variation quickly. The few things that count are more general:
As much a social/managerial issue as a tech one (Score:3, Insightful)
The first step is to assess the current situation - what coding practices are currently in use? What do the developers want? Can you roughly group the existing codebase into various standards, plus a pile of incoherent crap? Is it worth while rewriting the crap portion to the new standards?
Second, decide what level of standardization you want to achieve. The more detailed your standards, the more difficult and risky. You will probably make some wrong decisions, and they will irritate developers now or in the future. However, if all your developers code in the same language, and several of you are experts, you may be able to write detailed standards and get it right.
Third, identify relevant references. If you're working with Perl, Damian Conway's Perl Best Practices is a good choice. In C++, Meyers' Effective C++ series is good.
In general, micro-standards will not be successful. Instead of trying to make everyone use the same indentation or something, you'll get the most bang for the buck by focusing on high level issues. For example:
Good luck.
The beauty of slashdot :) (Score:3, Insightful)
- What is a development envorement?
- What is QA?
- How can I test code before putting it on production?
- How can I plan for and track team progress in development?
- What kind of documentation will I need?
- What is a process?
- How do you declare/manage process?
- Who is responsible for builds, who writes specs?
- Do we have separate QA team?
- Is there any testcases?
(silly, I know, but shows the scope of his position a bit)
YET we have 300 comments + discussion of using or not using hungarian notation in naming variables.
Perrfect!
Re:What a question! (Score:3, Insightful)
You work for me, you do it my way. If you think your way is better, present it to me and tell me why. "Cause it's the way I do it " doesn't count.
I'll train you, I'l give you time to set up your editor so it automates whatever you need automating. I'll mentor you, have other developers mentor you. But there is a line where I expect the developer to be up to speed.
Re:What a question! (Score:3, Funny)
Perhaps someone broke in and fixed the code.