That says nothing without context.
If you want to move fast then it's ok to break things, and leaking layers is far from a non-negotiating tradeoff. Software is soft, and you can always revisit a piece of code to refactor it to suit someone's architectural tastes.
It makes no sense to criticize someone for focusing where it matters the most and actually deliver critical features without delay if the tradeoff is some legacy debt, and that by no mean implies they're junior.
One important skill of a senior is being able to keep their eyes on the prize and be smart about tradeoffs. Prioritizing subjective opinions over software architecture over delivering value is more in line with a junior way of thinking about software than not, and to me doesn't sound like a position to criticize others.
The problem is people don't want to expend the very minor extra amount of effort.
So you do it once. Then the next person does it because hey we already do it there so the code is not even subjectively worse, it's objectively the same, cuz you already crossed that line.
After a while you have a giant festering pile of shit that you just keep making bigger and bigger and now people are talking about rewriting it.
In my experience you start actively losing velocity in this situation very quickly. If you're doing this when you still your have 3+ months on a project, you're likely making poor decisions.
I'm not saying you need to constantly gold plate your architecture. But it should be palatable.
The subjective part is what is palatable. But I don't know anyone who thinks steaming turdpiles are palatable.
The interesting thing is that this isn't a technical problem, it's a human problem. Most folks want to clock in, do their job and clock out, and going the extra mile to improve things isn't worth the effort.
I think its the same human tendency that leaves so much pee on the toilet floor - some humans will clean up their own, but almost none will clean up someone else's.
I suspect this is because it’s almost never rewarded. Either because nobody up the chain of command understands and values quality beyond “it’s working and making us money right now so it’s fine” and also because doing things right is tiring. Why should I spend energy on this and not have that energy when I’m off the clock if I’m not going to get more money/recognition/time off for it and I’ll probably get laid off or move on in a couple years anyway.
I don’t think anyone deliberately starts a job or task thinking they’ll do the absolute minimum. People generally want to do their best but the system moderates this desire and that’s the result.
I don’t really have a solution, just pointing it out.
The solution is not to accept "it is what it is".
The time tax is paid by not delivering a feature. Architecture is supposed to be there to help you, not fail deadlines.
Also, it seems you completely failed to read or get what I wrote. My point was that if a PR delivers a feature without defects then your team is far better off if you accept the PR and refactor later when you can spare the time then it is if you throw a hissy fit and refuse to get the feature done if you don't get your way. You are paid to create value which is in delivering features and fixing bugs. Architecture is supposed to be there to help you.
Think about it for a second. If your architectural purity demands a hefty refactor, is that a good justification to postpone a bug fix or delivering a feature? No, it isn't.
> The problem is people don't want to expend the very minor extra amount of effort.
Except that most time it isn't minor.
You have to pass interfaces throughout a bunch of components, which require updating all sorts of tests, and result in a large code footprint.
> After a while you have a giant festering pile of shit (...)
That only happens if you're incompetent at your job and fail to do the most basic maintenance tasks in your code base.
Look at what you're trying to claim. It's supposedly easy and trouble-free to put together a PR that respects your personal notion of what the software architecture should be. Yet, the work to refactor code that breaks it is so insurmountable that you're no longer able to refactor it back to shape?
Which one is it then?
It looks like the FANG engineer you tried to badmouth had a firmer grasp on things and on what it matters the most than you do.
Most deadlines are artificial. If it's not artificial, yeah, you're going to have to sacrifice something for the sake of the real deadline. But you are sacrificing something, and it's not just subjective fluff.
> Also, it seems you completely failed to read or get what I wrote. My point was that if a PR delivers a feature without defects then your team is far better off if you accept the PR and refactor later when you can spare the time
You don't ever have spare time. When you finish a feature there's another waiting for you. At least, that's how it works literally everywhere I've worked. Working this way is just another form of over-promising and under-delivering.
> then it is if you throw a hissy fit and refuse to get the feature done if you don't get your way
Rejecting a change doesn't mean you're throwing a hissy fit.
> You are paid to create value which is in delivering features and fixing bugs. Architecture is supposed to be there to help you.
It does help you. In the medium to longer term. In the short term, literally any standard out there will slow you down - unit tests, CI/CD, shit - testing at all. It all slows you down. It doesn't mean we should just code like its 90s era PHP - the fact that we don't should be a strong signal about the value of this whole hypothesis you have going here.
> You have to pass interfaces throughout a bunch of components, which require updating all sorts of tests, and result in a large code footprint.
Funny. Your tests are slowing you down, why don't you just comment them out to get your feature in?
> Look at what you're trying to claim. It's supposedly easy and trouble-free to put together a PR that respects your personal notion of what the software architecture should be.
It's not actually just personal. We have unit tests that enforce certain architectural rules.
> Yet, the work to refactor code that breaks it is so insurmountable that you're no longer able to refactor it back to shape?
If you don't do these things for the sake of feature velocity, as a senior software engineer, why should anyone else? If no one is, how large of a problem do you think you're going to get? And do you really think its just as easy to fix something after the fact?
Of course, if you don't know how something should be, that's one thing. But knowing how it should be and just skipping it altogether is quite another.
Why are you even refactoring for reasons you view as subjective? I don't do subjective refactorings. Despite what you claim, at the point of a change, much of this stuff is very not subjective. If you show any developer a function call before a feature was added, and what it looks like after its been hacked it in some fucked way, no one is going to say the fucked version is better.
> It looks like the FANG engineer you tried to badmouth had a firmer grasp on things and on what it matters the most than you do.
Well maybe you're just so smart its trivial for you to navigate this stuff. If so, continue by all means. Until then, us mere mortals will have to adopt standards so our codebases don't outpace our ability to understand it.
Yes. That’s why it’s an important skill for an engineer to know when to make that tradeoff.
Sounds like you’re agreeing with the grandparent comment?
