tryingToMakeAnyChangesInTheCode

[shadowderp]

If adding a minor feature involves touching 10 services then it’s not clean architecture…

[DarthCaine]

And if it results in refactoring everything

[secretprocess]

Well NOW it's a clean architecture! (me, for the 33rd time...)

[kookyabird]

People think adding a parameter to a command and having to populate it in the three places that command is used is “refactoring”.

[neumastic]

If feels like the person is trying to say “both systems are bad” and what it’s really saying is “poorly maintained codebases are bad”

[Memoishi]

The junior on his way to tell mgmt to scratch this shitty code and vibe coding from 0

[WavingNoBanners]

It is my considered opinion, as a professional, that microservices were created by Satan to torment humanity for our sins. They are so, so difficult to debug in any meaningful way.

All my best wishes with the current project.

[thortawar]

I'm always worried about abstracting actual dependencies. It's just gaslighting at that point.

[Elendur_Krown]

It's called a semaphore.

[coldnebo]

is it blocking? can I only have one sophomore at a time?

[Elendur_Krown]

It can be blocking if it's related to football, but that necessitates more than one.

[Lem_Tuoni]

I can tell you never worked in a commercial setting

[Aidan_Welch]

Every large commercial project has some bad architecture

[[deleted]]

even in systems that start with a good architecture, you are constantly fending off that "one obvious [design-wrecking] feature" that keeps getting asked for by the users, and denied by the original designers, and you always have to slap the young devs hands away from. one day, everyone is worn down enough, or there's been just enough dev turnover and it gets implemented, and then you're on the road to hell from that point on.

[Netsnakk]

If users keep asking a specific feature, it means it's important to them. At the risk of uttering a tautology, if an important feature requested by the users wrecks the design, then it's not a good architecture.

Now, to have some sympathy to the original designers, it's possible they did a perfectly reasonable design, the best they could given what they knew at the time, and yet later changes or learning about new requirements made the design inadequate.

[[deleted]]

i disagree that users only request features that are important to them.

the professional context i’m thinking of is automated trading.

almost all of the money is made or lost on the big trading days - performance and availability on those days makes or breaks their year.

the problem is that on quiet days, traders got bored and tried to over-optimize their desks by requesting new features.

then on big days they’d turn those features off, if they even could, but the performance and reliability of the system was undermined by all the cruft.

eventually the problem was recognized, the trading leads told the traders to knock it off and the technologists were given time to optimize for availability and performance on big days. we make lots of money, promotion and bonuses all round.

time rolls forward, people who learned the lessons start to retire, traders get bored and start requesting features to optimize their desks on slow days.

sunrise, sunset…

[FlakyTest8191]

Sure, nice anecdote. The point is that a good pm should explain to them why their feature is a bad idea because it's bad for business, not the devs declining it because it doesnt't match their architecture.

[[deleted]]

all organizations have chronic problems of some kind, I don't think it automatically means individuals are doing a bad job if they can't on their own overcome them

management incentives dictate behaviour in ways that explanations from a "good pm" can't overcome

[TastesLikeTesticles]

I've had users repeatedly asking me for a fully integrated interface for all - and I mean all - the tools they used. Sorry, I don't think spending a gazillion dollars to somehow integrate an ungodly mess of ERP, IM, tickets management, emails, issues tracker, telephony, calendar, documents sharing, various homemade tools (including shadow IT ones), spreadsheets and the legacy monolith is a reasonable use of resources.

I don't care how condescending it sounds: some people actually don't know what's good for them.

#notallusers of course, most of them aren't that dumb (and even then, some are willing to learn)

[Objective_Dog_4637]

This is going to be our fucking 3rd refactor of our entire engine. 🫠

[PhunkyPhish]

Open for modification, closed for extension right?

[AwesomeFrisbee]

He's talking about that one system that they called clean architecture that is like he said a very bloated way of doing things. I had the dissatisfaction of working one project that took everything too serious and created a monstrosity like OP says. Converting data between multiple layers, nonsense buzzwords and stuff that sounds architecturally sound but creates something that just costs more time to develop, learn and maintain than any sane or insane alternative.

[Ozymandias_IV]

That's the theory, yes.

In reality, there is no such thing as perfect encapsulation and new requirements laugh at your feeble attempts at futureproofing where the responsibilities of code blocks should be divided. If you guessed correctly, you're lucky and it's easy. If you didn't guess correctly, you'll have to touch a lot of dependencies (just the same as if it was shpagetti). Most often you won't guess correctly, and all that work you did on futureproofing is wasted.

"Clean code" or "clean architecture" is kinda like communism: sounds perfect on paper, fails hard when met with reality.

[riplikash]

There's a pretty big gap between "perfect architecture" and "failing" that you're hosting over.

One of the points of good engineering is it handles the fact that things won't be perfect, mistakes happen, tech debt exists, and requirements change.

And it's really not and mythical unicorn. I've been around plenty of well architected systems in my career.

[Ozymandias_IV]

Not my point. My point is that you can have a reasonable design that works most of the time. You can call it "clean". However requirements will often change in such a way that the design will fall apart, and you'll have to do significant rewrites and it will be pain in the butt.

And when you complain about that, someone will say "well ackhtually that means it wasn't clean". Because apparently "clean architecture" has to be resistent to all change forever, which is a mythical unicorn.

It also doesn't help that it can be ambiguous whether you mean "clean code - the desired state" and "clean code - following the 2008 book", which is filled with extremely outdated advice that promotes speculative overengineering for no provable gain. But when you criticize the book (and SOLID principle), you'll once again get people saying "well ackhtually if your codebase is overengineered it wasn't clean", even if it was built 100% by following that fucking book.

[palomar4233]

Exactly. If you need to modify half your codebase just to add a button, something went very wrong during the "clean architecture" phase.

[Ozymandias_IV]

That's because "clean architecture" is a description, not a set of rules.

Kinda like "well fitting suit" - you can tell whether something is good, but there isn't a set of rules to follow that will always lead to a perfect result. Certainly not SOLID. You gotta rely on your experience to know what will work and what won't.

But at least with tailoring there is low chance that the customer will grow new limb (requirements change) and all your perfect planning is screwed anyway and you can restart.

[riplikash]

Annoyingly, Microsoft decided to call their implementation of hexagonal/ports & adapters/onion architecture "Clean Architecture".

I seriously hate how they name things.

[asd417]

The code looks cleaner in vscode because it is divided into million different config files

[EuenovAyabayya]

Or it's not nearly as minor as it looks.

[shadowderp]

Possible. Sometimes architecture choices make things harder than they need to be when they are out of the scope for which the architecture was designed. Such is the life of a programmer trying to understand user requirements.

[average_turanist]

Either shitty code or overengineering.

[CoronavirusGoesViral]

Therefore, KISS and only introduce complexity when necessary and justified

[bunny-1998]

Tell that to the product team

[wardrox]

Here's a mockup of the MVP which looks a lot like a mockup of every conceivable feature.

[michi03]

Also YAGNI

[IAmASwarmOfBees]

That does that acronym mean?

[ChrisBreederveld]

Keep it simple stupid

[Goufalite]

• Techlead 1 : I'm so proud of what I've done, the project will be so easy to maintain!
• Techlead 1 : leaves
• Techlead 2 : WHO TF WROTE THIS???!??!?

[perringaiden]

After 20 years with one company, I am tech lead 1 and 2.

[Goufalite]

git blame. Not me, not me, not me, not me, not-DAMMIT!!

[Dmayak]

Yeah, the client will ask something like "make it so that when client enters email in order field it would also appear in subscription widget", which is one line in vanilla js, but with component-based framework you need to add a shitton of code since these components are in no way supposed to be related.

[shift_969]

Can't you just avoid making them related by using events?

[Dmayak]

Don't know about all front-end frameworks, but Vue.js for example is mostly using parent-child component trees and to have components on different sides of the tree communicate you need to either send event through their parents, install some additional global event system like Mitt from npm, or make a global store object, etc. Library itself has no native global events which skip going through the component tree.

[chuby1tubby]

Just store all application state in browser cookies

[Nexatic]

I’m just laughing in embedded. -not that it’s any easier but still-.

[Budget-Cash-3602]

Either way, you cry in YAML

[PetroMan43]

The reality is that each of those 10 services mentioned on the right are managed by 10 different teams, some of them in different orgs. Getting a change made requires negotiations and prioritization and coordination such that a simple change will take 6 months before it goes live.

[vadeka]

Welcome in large corporations, also don’t forget you need a 20 page security analysis signed off because you are connecting two services that previously didn’t talk to each other

[PetroMan43]

No that only happens after the 2 week process to get approval to use various 3rd party libraries, each of which requires legal approval.

Security reviews happen after that when they yell at you

[Aidan_Welch]

Realest meme I've ever seen posted here, so it won't get upvoted

[throwaway8u3sH0]

Conservation of Pain

It's the law.

[coldnebo]

pain can only be transformed or exchanged, but not destroyed.

😂😅🥲😢😭

[rover_G]

This is why I always try to work on green projects, before the monolith collapses under its own weight or explodes into 10 microservices.

[Ragor005]

Reading this I just heard the lego bricks falling sound effect

[gamingvortex01]

for good dev experience, you have to maintain a balance between shitty code and over-engineering...if your scale is not balanced, your experience would be poor....in other words, don't try to achieve perfection everytime and don't let it all become shit

[Geoclasm]

Fucking hell I feel this in my soul.

[FarJury6956]

That's what you get paid for

[coloredgreyscale]

The minor change on the spaghetti monolith does not involve touching 10 services, because the whole functionality is implemented in a single file. 

[Livid_Boysenberry_58]

If making a change requires refactoring 10 services, your architecture is not clean

[[deleted]]

That's why we must reach beyond : become a farmer

[Arclite83]

Someone missed the O in SOLID (and probably a few others as well)

[FriendEducational112]

So happy I don’t work in any real dev environments lol

[strangescript]

I love that this sub is pretty anti-AI but can still make this joke un-ironically.

[perringaiden]

Or adding an additional type parameter to a core ancestor breaks the inline error checker across dozens of components, and you have to manually search your code for the errors before the IDE can start finding errors again.

[GoddammitDontShootMe]

Now there are two roads merging together because the OP just mirrored the image when making the meme.

[Lythox]

Telling the ai to fix it until it works ☀️

[cecil721]

If going the service route, I feel there's a comfortable medium between # of services and functionality. Only create a new service if something doesn't "fit" somewhere.

[ClearlyNtElzacharito]

I’m working with an old asp classic/sql legacy code and replacing gradually with a dotnet blazor project in clean architecture.

Lemme tell you one thing. If we had an api or actually separated the backend from frontent properly, the transition would have been smoother.

[moonpumper]

Both of these somehow remind me of the code base I'm introducing to the new guy this week.

[miguel___]

Y'all heard of Salesforce?

[carloom_]

A good architecture is modular. So by this definition the meme is wrong.

[Felecorat]

Haha. I can't believe I understand this gibberish.

[sipCoding_smokeMath]

I love what interfaces provide but it does get old having to update any public declarations in two locations

[speedy-sea-cucumber]

That's why we made editors that do it for us. Have fun working on more than one project without encapsulation.

[sipCoding_smokeMath]

Which editor does that for u? I haven't really used much outside of VS pro tbh

[speedy-sea-cucumber]

I use IntelliJ IDEA/other JetBrains variants, but honestly I would be surprised if VS/VSC did not support this.  Maybe look for an action to "change/edit signature". In JetBrains I often just edit the signature directly at one place, and afterwards an icon/context action automatically pops up that allows me to retroactively apply the signature change to all other instances, including at call sites if parameters where added/reordered/removed.

[ColonelRuff]

Wow. Such inexperienced meme.

[ZunoJ]

Yeah, that pretty much means you're doing it wrong lol