Bad code as an invasive species is the freshest take I've heard. I have a hard enough time arguing with people that tech debt isn't about bad code, but shifting priorities and requirements. This is going to be a really useful analogy for me going forward, thanks!
I thought we solved the kudzu problem by having goats graze on them and rip them out by the roots, right? So maybe we should set goats on legacy git repos as well.
This is beautiful. It succinctly articulates a very subjective issue I’ve had with a variety of PRs that I’ve been unable to triangulate on.
Once bad code is in, it’s so easy to propagate through the rest of the codebase for a variety of well-meaning but ultimately harmful reasons. Every month I witness colleagues with their heart in the right place open PRs containing code that ultimately I feel will become a long-term burden and source of pain, even if it delivers immediate business value. I’m going to share this with them not as something to use to reject their PRs, but as a common language so that I can share with them them how I want them to approach the software I’m responsible for delivering and maintaining. I think this is a good way to address low-quality human and LLM code.
The article abridged the history too much.
It was first imported as an exhibition of plants from Japan in 1876. It's usefulness as a ground cover in the US was understood later, and in the 1930s (Dust Bowl times) the USDA advocated farmers intentionally plant it as a way to hold down the soil. After that, you might say, it far exceeded its usefulness as a ground cover.
The other thing is that its coverage estimation was off by at least an order of magnitude. It is a transition zone species. So they cover trees that are at the perimeter of forests or stands along highways. Back in the 70s aerial estimations were not as good as today’s. Their visual extrapolations were thus way, way off. It’s still a pest but it’s not “swallowing the South”.
Bad code as an invasive species is the freshest take I've heard. I have a hard enough time arguing with people that tech debt isn't about bad code, but shifting priorities and requirements. This is going to be a really useful analogy for me going forward, thanks!
Coincidentally, the same plant in Japanese is kuzu (クズ, or 葛), which shares the same pronunciation as the word for trash (屑). So bad code is trash.
I thought we solved the kudzu problem by having goats graze on them and rip them out by the roots, right? So maybe we should set goats on legacy git repos as well.
I will now refer to senior engineers with a bone to pick with a codebase as “hungry goats”.
The hardware auto-detection tool in Red Hat Linux was also called Kudzu, before udev times: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Anaconda/Features/NoMoreKudzu
This is beautiful. It succinctly articulates a very subjective issue I’ve had with a variety of PRs that I’ve been unable to triangulate on.
Once bad code is in, it’s so easy to propagate through the rest of the codebase for a variety of well-meaning but ultimately harmful reasons. Every month I witness colleagues with their heart in the right place open PRs containing code that ultimately I feel will become a long-term burden and source of pain, even if it delivers immediate business value. I’m going to share this with them not as something to use to reject their PRs, but as a common language so that I can share with them them how I want them to approach the software I’m responsible for delivering and maintaining. I think this is a good way to address low-quality human and LLM code.
> as a way to combat soil erosion
I heard it differently. I heard that it was imported for aesthetic reasons (like starlings).
Nasty stuff. We're starting to see it up here, in New York. I remember it well, from Maryland.
Yay climate change!
I often "hit the reset button" on projects. It used to be waiting until the pain was great enough, but LLMs make it a lot easier.
The article abridged the history too much. It was first imported as an exhibition of plants from Japan in 1876. It's usefulness as a ground cover in the US was understood later, and in the 1930s (Dust Bowl times) the USDA advocated farmers intentionally plant it as a way to hold down the soil. After that, you might say, it far exceeded its usefulness as a ground cover.
I’ve heard similar.
The other thing is that its coverage estimation was off by at least an order of magnitude. It is a transition zone species. So they cover trees that are at the perimeter of forests or stands along highways. Back in the 70s aerial estimations were not as good as today’s. Their visual extrapolations were thus way, way off. It’s still a pest but it’s not “swallowing the South”.
This is a wonderful analogy.