Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

9
  • 3
    his changes are clearly not in tune with accepted practices at his company. As a result, he's the one out of step with everyone else and thus wrong. Fixing the practices there is a constructive move (and then modify all the code), rewriting code to suit your preferences of what is 'best' is simply disruptive, and often pointless. Commented May 14, 2015 at 16:34
  • 1
    @gbjbaanb Eh, I think you're making assumptions about what kind of company he's at. It's pretty common for there not to be clear company-wide consensus on practices, and for things like this to be worked out on a pair/small group level. Commented May 14, 2015 at 16:59
  • 1
    @BenAaronson I went with refutations #4 and #5 - they suggest the others in the team don't see things the same way. We have to work with what we've got here! Commented May 14, 2015 at 18:14
  • Although testability is important, isn't is a slight biased approach to deem a bit of code superior just because it improves testing? Commented May 14, 2015 at 22:34
  • The key quote for me is "assuming we have time allocated for cleaning up code" I don't think anyone would argue that the re-factored code is not better from a CS perspective. So it seems to me the subtext is, actually, there is no time for re-factoring after all. Commented May 15, 2015 at 7:58