←back to thread

107 points pixelworm | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source

I’m working on improving my software design skills, and it was recommended that I study existing well designed codebases. What are some publicly accessible codebases you would consider gold standards for software design?
Show context
pfannkuchen ◴[] No.45001808[source]
Maybe I’m just not good enough at paying attention, but for me it seems like you have to actually run into problems over and over and figure out how to avoid the problems. Then you end up being able to mentally simulate what problems you will run into, and design is basically all about avoiding future problems of various kinds (and balancing tradeoffs about which future problems to avoid and how much effort to put into each, whether you can solve multiple with one design play, etc).
replies(6): >>45002077 #>>45002139 #>>45002144 #>>45002299 #>>45002595 #>>45068338 #
teiferer ◴[] No.45002299[source]
> for me it seems like you have to actually run into problems over and over and figure out how to avoid the problems

This shows how immature the field of software engineering is. Imagine bridges or houses were built like that. Or your surgeon was trained like that.

Over time, we hopefully develop estblished norms, but at the moment, things are too much in flux. Put 5 sw engineers in a room, pose a problem and you will get not just 5 different solution proposals, but there will likely be strong disagreements on which approach is a good one.

"I recognize a good solution when I see it" is just not good enough for a serious engineering discipline.

replies(7): >>45002314 #>>45002440 #>>45002698 #>>45003480 #>>45006059 #>>45006883 #>>45008972 #
hvb2 ◴[] No.45002314[source]
> Imagine bridges or houses were built like that. Or your surgeon was trained like that.

While I don't disagree with you in general, this does feel a bit off.

By that logic you can call the field of music immature, and all of the arts. I think the difference is that its easy to experiment without high costs.

I genuinely think that if building bridges was cheap and quick, the fastest way to learn was to try...

replies(1): >>45004250 #
nchagnet ◴[] No.45004250[source]
I generally agree with your point on ease of experimentation, but if we insist on calling it software engineering, then maybe the field needs to adhere to engineering principles, as the GP highlighted.
replies(2): >>45004748 #>>45005384 #
1. tuckerman ◴[] No.45004748[source]
I believe part of engineering isn’t over-engineering for the task at hand as well. If the costs of a “failure” are low/zero then the right thing can be to move quickly expecting some problems.

I think the field could get better at knowing when costs are low (eg sometimes scalability, cheaper to change a database choice than rebuild a bridge) and where the costs are sometimes very high (eg security).