• cbazero@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      You dont. Thats why you write code that explains itself. For higher level info you write documentation.

  • fubarx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    72
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    My first tech job out of college, I was told to go talk to “Dave,” the guru old-timey programmer and learn the lay of the land. He turned out to be this crotchety old guy, with low tolerance for idiots, but a soft spot for someone who actually paid attention.

    A few months in, I was told to go fix a feature in the company’s main product which was sold to power utilities. This was a MASSIVE code base, with a mix of C, C++, assembler, and a bit of Fortran thrown in. I spent a week poring through all the code trying to figure things out. Then I hit a mystery workflow that didn’t make sense.

    I walk over to Dave’s office and ask a specific question. Now, mind you, he had worked on this years ago, and had long moved on to new products. He leans back in his chair, stares at the ceiling, then without looking at the screen once tells me to go look at such and such file for such and such variable, and a list of functions that were related. I go back to my desk and damn if it wasn’t EXACTLY as he described.

    Now, I’m probably as old as he was then. I don’t remember what I wrote an hour ago. No matter what I build, I’ll always be in awe of Dave and what he could keep in his head.

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Alt theory: The guy you replaced failed miserably. Dave poked around but decided it wasn’t worth his time fixing. Instead, decided to look badass for the cameras and died a legend.

  • bitwolf@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Partially yes. But if I create something myself I can “revisit” the headspace of that portion very easily, like I walked into a room.

    Doesn’t work as well on codebases I don’t own fully though.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    15 hours ago

    This made me chortle. I remember when I first joined a dev team asking someone how many of something their section should be able to store:

    I don’t know, I’d have to look at the code.

    It was an eye opening moment. Very few people can keep everything in their head. I’ve met a couple. They were rockstars who were truly exceptional.

    • livingcoder@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      15 hours ago

      For me it all depends on how often a project changes. If it’s constantly in flux, I don’t bother remembering any of it because I might not be the last one who touched it. The more you try to remember everything, the more wrong you become due to the successive work of your coworkers.

  • wise_pancake@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 hours ago

    The people who say “the code is the documentation” totally misunderstood what that was supposed to look like

  • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Aren’t you supposed to spam comments and use meaningful variable and function names? That’s what I do with my bash scripts.

    Oh wait I ain’t a programma’. You call this shit R9GFJKL34LTYLKFÇDS and hope for the best, right?

  • Spacehooks@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    12 hours ago

    The code is so convoluted the programmer has no idea how it works. Just tables and arrays references each other.