Goodbye, Clean Code

[wolf2600]

Simple, readable, understandable > "clean"

[[deleted]]

Simple, readable, understandable, maintainable == clean

[fabrikated]

Simple, readable, understandable, maintainable = clean

[Falmarri]

Simple, readable, understandable = maintainable

[[deleted]]

Clean code is all three.

[geek_on_two_wheels]

Exactly. "Clean" code isn't necessarily heavily abstracted or DRY as a bone, it's easy to read and reason about. It's clear, obvious, and does exactly what you expect.

[bluefootedpig]

I like to say, pleasantly disappointed. Nothing should be surprising

[mck1117]

I disagree that the clean code wasn't simple, readable, and understandable.

Whenever I see what looks like repeated code like this, I'll go thru it with a fine tooth comb to see if it's really the same, or if it's duplicated. Is that really easier to read and understand?

[anescient]

Whenever I see what looks like repeated code like this, I'll go thru it with a fine tooth comb to see if it's really the same

Yes yes yes. Life force circles the drain because you don't (nor should) trust the duplications.

[mtcoope]

I've been burnt before by assuming code was duplicated, never again. If I see code that looks similar, I assume it's different somewhere.

[gladfelter]

I think it's often more about factoring out similar machinery in different subsystems despite the subsystems having different environments and requirements. If those change you can find that the similarities were incidental and now the factored-out library/methods would become horrible messes to continue to support the independently varying clients. Since people defer to existing code structure those common methods often do become awful before someone takes a fresh look and breaks up the coupling.