I was hired on at my current job to replace the developer before me who was part of the way through building an application that replaces what was at the time done in three very old applications. The opening method, called by pressing the start button, was named "DoStuff()". There were several other versions of "DoStuff" throughout the code and it made the job of learning what had already been done and needed to be done even harder than it needed to be. Thanks guy before me.
Sure seems like! The first time we were debugging a soap request together on code I was able to conceptualize and write from the ground up, my manager was blown away at the OOP style of error output from small, single-job methods with descriptive names: "oh, it's getting hung up in the binding portion of the login method. Wow that's helpful!"
No more DoStuff() on my watch, dang it!
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I was hired on at my current job to replace the developer before me who was part of the way through building an application that replaces what was at the time done in three very old applications. The opening method, called by pressing the start button, was named "DoStuff()". There were several other versions of "DoStuff" throughout the code and it made the job of learning what had already been done and needed to be done even harder than it needed to be. Thanks guy before me.
Haha I always love stories like this. It seems readability is always an afterthought.
Sure seems like! The first time we were debugging a soap request together on code I was able to conceptualize and write from the ground up, my manager was blown away at the OOP style of error output from small, single-job methods with descriptive names: "oh, it's getting hung up in the binding portion of the login method. Wow that's helpful!"
No more DoStuff() on my watch, dang it!