DEV Community

Ben Halpern
Ben Halpern

Posted on

What's your favorite software idiom/aphorism?

Top comments (57)

Collapse
 
ben profile image
Ben Halpern

I'm quite fond of the "ninety-ninety rule", it's so true and so heartbreaking.

In computer programming and software engineering, the ninety-ninety rule is a humorous aphorism that states:

The first 90 percent of the code accounts for the first 90 percent of the development time. The remaining 10 percent of the code accounts for the other 90 percent of the development time.

Collapse
 
andrewbrown profile image
Andrew Brown πŸ‡¨πŸ‡¦

I can't think of any other's Ben. You nailed it.

Collapse
 
geekynerdgirl profile image
Ashley

I always heard that as the 80-20 rule.

Collapse
 
ben profile image
Ben Halpern

That’s a different rule

The Pareto principle states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.

Collapse
 
fifo profile image
Filipe Herculano

Recently I discovered that if you run "import this" on a python shell you get this beauty:

>>> import this
The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters

Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than *right* now.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!
Collapse
 
bytebodger profile image
Adam Nathaniel Davis

A function (or method) should do one thing, and do it well.

Collapse
 
hadrianhughes profile image
Hadrian Hughes

I like seeing this applied on the macro level too. ie keeping a command line tool specialised to doing one specific task very well.

Collapse
 
louy2 profile image
Yufan Lou • Edited

You'd be surprised at how god-damn much those command line tools actually do.

If you open up a manpage for ls on mac, you’ll see that it starts with

ls [-ABCFGHLOPRSTUW@abcdefghiklmnopqrstuwx1] [file ...]

That is, the one-letter flags to ls include every lowercase letter except for {jvyz}, 14 uppercase letters, plus @ and 1. That’s 22 + 14 + 2 = 38 single-character options alone.

-- The growth of command line options, 1979-Present

Collapse
 
n8chz profile image
Lorraine Lee

Also Google's rule for browser extensions, each extension should do one thing.

Collapse
 
louy2 profile image
Yufan Lou • Edited

This is an idiom which sounds nice but cannot be applied, due to the underspecificity of both "one thing" and "well". It is as meaningless as the following function signature:

f :: a
Collapse
 
codemouse92 profile image
Jason C. McDonald • Edited

Oh, there are so many. One of my favorites, though, comes from Fred Brooks:

The bearing of a child takes nine months, no matter how many women are assigned.

You know Brooks from Brooks's Law:

Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later

Collapse
 
ganonbit profile image
Andrew Reese

Oof, some old managers/owners needed to hear those

Collapse
 
youssefrabeiii profile image
Youssef Rabei

YAGNI: you aren't gonna need it

Collapse
 
mburszley profile image
Maximilian Burszley

Need a mug with this on it for retros. Some coworkers want the kitchen sink "in case our app grows bigger."

Collapse
 
bytebodger profile image
Adam Nathaniel Davis • Edited

There are only two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation and naming things. - Phil Karlton

I only actually heard this aphorism a few years ago (although the original quote is from far earlier). But it's amazing how often I think of it now. Obtuse, hard-to-follow code can often be "magically" transformed by applying the proper descriptive names to the variables / methods / functions / classes / etc. And yet, it can often be soooooo difficult, when you're writing the code for the first time, to settle on just the "perfect" names that will render the code clear and self-explanatory.

Collapse
 
felipperegazio profile image
Felippe Regazio

"Perfectionism can motivate you to become good. But it will destroy your ability to become great" - Joel Klettke.

Collapse
 
mustapha profile image
Mustapha Aouas

Small code duplication is better than a bad abstraction

Collapse
 
elmuerte profile image
Michiel Hendriks • Edited

There's no single favorite. But a few:

  • Deleted code is debugged code - Jeff Sickel
    • And also "The most secure code in the world is code which is never written." - Colin Percival
  • If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work. - Mich Ravera
    • Also: nothing takes as long as developing the wrong thing
  • A good programmer is someone who always looks both ways before crossing a one-way street. - Doug Linder
    • e.g. this input parameter is never X, then it doesn't hurt to validate it before using it.
  • Testing can show the presence of errors, but not their absence. - Edsger W. Dijkstra
    • I have no idea how often I had to tell people this when they complain about found issues and say "hasn't this been tested?".
Collapse
 
ryansmith profile image
Ryan Smith
  • If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
  • Don't reinvent the wheel.

They are generic and didn't originate with software, but I think they are very applicable.

Collapse
 
imedacf profile image
imedacf

The first one feels like, one should not touch it if it works, but bad code still needs to be refactored.

Collapse
 
ryansmith profile image
Ryan Smith

I think it depends on the situation, refactoring for the sake of it may not be worth the effort. If it works and you won't have to touch it or worry about its performance, it can be left alone. If it is a commonly used piece of code and it is causing problems when building features, then that is a good time to refactor it.

Thread Thread
 
imedacf profile image
imedacf

Ofc, it depends, but I would build my mind around refactoring the bad code, rather then thinking not to touch it, unless its broken πŸ˜„

Collapse
 
yashints profile image
Yaser Adel Mehraban

Everything comes down to one word:

Bikeshedding

πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚

Collapse
 
vinayhegde1990 profile image
Vinay Hegde • Edited

Not quite a software idiom but I'm sure everyone here who's maintained any aspect of a production environment will resonate with this:

Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong - Murphy's Law

Collapse
 
qm3ster profile image
Mihail Malo

We have iterators now, so it was trimmed

Collapse
 
codingmindfully profile image
Daragh Byrne

YAGNI. Although I feel like I should have it tattooed on my forehead. Gold plating temptation is real!

Collapse
 
ryands17 profile image
Ryan Dsouza

One of the idioms I like is: "Code never lies, comments sometimes do". Unless the comment is meaning to convey something the code cannot, you're better off not writing one. I can be quite misleading to read an incorrect or outdated comment.

Some comments may only be visible to logged-in visitors. Sign in to view all comments.