Is it really tempting for people? They’ve given me too many headaches when I’ve had to reformat or add functionality to files.
Unless it’s a simple single use script that fit on the computer screen, I don’t feel like global variables would ever be tempting, unless it’s for constants.
Why is that weirder? The people writing scientific software are, by and large, less good at writing software than people who only specialize in software development. I’d expect there to tons of terrible engineering practices in an old code base like that
Because even trivial things like Fourier transforms (to people like me) are very difficult to understand to those that don’t know them. They took me years to understand. Non scientific software engineers do not understand those. It’s just a different course of education.
You’re also right about old code base as well. Algorithms like these belong in c++ (or C or fortran), and it’s extremely difficult to explain why to people who have no understanding of numerical computing.
in real life, I’m fighting with - I’m not joking - a few dozen “quick patches”. code does not reflect in any point functional requirements, and dude is adamant he’s in the right and supersarcastic in any occasion.
If you’re smart you do it the quick and easy way and leave the company before it bites you in the ass. Only suckers stay with the same company for more than a few years
I.e. you did use them, but learned the hard way why you shouldn’t.
Very likely OP is a student, or entry-level programmer, and is avoiding them because they were told to, and just haven’t done enough refactoring & debugging or worked on large enough code bases to ‘get’ it yet.
Unironically: For in-house scripts and toolboxes where I want to set stuff like input directory, output directory etc. for the whole toolbox, and then just run the scripts. There are other easy solutions of course, but this makes it really quick and easy to just run the scripts when I need to.
Depends on what you’re doing. Functional programming has its own downsides, especially once you want to write interactive programs, which often depend on global states. Then you either have to rely on atoms, which defeat the purpose of the functional programming, or pass around the program state, which is janly and can be slow.
I personally go multi paradigm. Simpler stuffs are almost functional (did not opt for consting everything due to performance issues), GUI stuff is OOP, etc.
Well, if you’re writing something the user will be looking at and clicking on, you will probably want to have some sort of state management that is global.
Or if you’re writing something that seems really simple and it’s own thing at first but then SURPRISE it is part of the system and a bunch of other programmers have incorporated it into their stuff and the business analyst is inquiring if you could make it configurable and also add a bunch of functionality.
I also had to work with a system where configurations for user space were done as libraries setting global constants.
And then we changed it so everything had to be hastily redone so that suddenly every client didn’t have the same config.
Is it really tempting for people? They’ve given me too many headaches when I’ve had to reformat or add functionality to files.
Unless it’s a simple single use script that fit on the computer screen, I don’t feel like global variables would ever be tempting, unless it’s for constants.
Most people suck at software engineering.
Plus, there’s always the temptation to do it the shitty way and “fix it later” (which never happens).
You pay your technical debt. One way or another.
It’s way worse than any gangster.
Not if you leave the project soon enough. It’s like tech debt chicken.
Then, at your new job, you see garbage code and wonder what dumbass would put global variables everywhere
That’s how this industry works ;)
You’re gonna see that even if you were pious at your own job. So you’re only wasting time.
amen
double amen
// TODO: Fix later
In a 10 year old commit from someone who’s left the company 5 years ago.
Bruh. I fixed software from the 90’s.
Scientific software too. Which is way weirder.
😀
Why is that weirder? The people writing scientific software are, by and large, less good at writing software than people who only specialize in software development. I’d expect there to tons of terrible engineering practices in an old code base like that
good question.
Because even trivial things like Fourier transforms (to people like me) are very difficult to understand to those that don’t know them. They took me years to understand. Non scientific software engineers do not understand those. It’s just a different course of education.
You’re also right about old code base as well. Algorithms like these belong in c++ (or C or fortran), and it’s extremely difficult to explain why to people who have no understanding of numerical computing.
It’s just different education.
I wish I was so lucky to have comments.
in real life, I’m fighting with - I’m not joking - a few dozen “quick patches”. code does not reflect in any point functional requirements, and dude is adamant he’s in the right and supersarcastic in any occasion.
I’ve been working at my current company for almost a year.
I had no idea it could be this bad.
I actually had to fight/plead with someone to “please read the code”. Guy did get fired though.
Later is the name of the intern my company hired when I resigned :)
If you’re smart you do it the quick and easy way and leave the company before it bites you in the ass. Only suckers stay with the same company for more than a few years
and thats why we are reading a book about clean code at my apprenticeship
This community makes more sense when you realize the majority of users are CS students.
Pointers hard!! LOL
Hey, don’t you group me in with people who have had a small amount of real training!
I.e. you did use them, but learned the hard way why you shouldn’t.
Very likely OP is a student, or entry-level programmer, and is avoiding them because they were told to, and just haven’t done enough refactoring & debugging or worked on large enough code bases to ‘get’ it yet.
I don’t get it either. Why would you ever feel the need for them to begin with?
In software that’s already badly engineered. Either you do the work and refactor everything, or accept it’s probably not worth all the effort.
Unironically: For in-house scripts and toolboxes where I want to set stuff like input directory, output directory etc. for the whole toolbox, and then just run the scripts. There are other easy solutions of course, but this makes it really quick and easy to just run the scripts when I need to.
But those would be constants, not variables.
I typically don’t declare them as such - bring the pitchforks!
Everything’s a variable if you’re brave enough.
My
void*doesn’t care about yourconst!As with the sexual connotation here, the temptation is not rooted in long-term considerations like future maintainability
Depends on what you’re doing. Functional programming has its own downsides, especially once you want to write interactive programs, which often depend on global states. Then you either have to rely on atoms, which defeat the purpose of the functional programming, or pass around the program state, which is janly and can be slow.
I personally go multi paradigm. Simpler stuffs are almost functional (did not opt for consting everything due to performance issues), GUI stuff is OOP, etc.
Well, if you’re writing something the user will be looking at and clicking on, you will probably want to have some sort of state management that is global.
Or if you’re writing something that seems really simple and it’s own thing at first but then SURPRISE it is part of the system and a bunch of other programmers have incorporated it into their stuff and the business analyst is inquiring if you could make it configurable and also add a bunch of functionality.
I also had to work with a system where configurations for user space were done as libraries setting global constants. And then we changed it so everything had to be hastily redone so that suddenly every client didn’t have the same config.