Generally bad, good, great? How much variance?
How would you describe the quality of the codebases you've worked on in your career?
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
Oldest comments (18)
From the sublime to the ridiculous. Mostly towards the latter
I have not worked in a lot for now.
But I would say pretty much good and even great :)
Pretty bad if I've authored them.
I envy every other I look at 😂
Well most of the time what I felt like was, the developers try to keep the codebase as generic and scalable (good basically) as possible but the product team always have requirements on such UNREALISTIC deadlines that it keeps adding to the tech debt with codebase getting very bad.
Variable from absolutely god-awful to acceptable. Certainly none that made me weep over how elegant they were.
While working on anything that does financial transactions...
It's all floats down here.
From poor to good. Yet to reach really good.
It's gone down over time! At my first software job we had a very high quality codebase and a lot of effort was put into keeping it that way. As a junior, I didn't know how to do that, and code reviews for my code lasted for weeks sometimes, with hundreds of comments and change requests. It could be frustrating, but in hindsight it was good for me.
Now I work at a startup where most of the founding engineers were juniors. Basically our codebase is like what I might have built at my first job if I had been given completely free reign. We have a lot of technical debt slowing us down, and there are some real facepalm moments when looking at the existing code, but we are getting better.
Missed opportunities.
Short, tall, deep, shallow. The most rewarding experiences are well-formed APIs and content management systems. It takes years for that to happen, and most projects are destined for the wastebasket of history.
Your time is a gift to the next person, make the most of it.