The Only Coding Standard You'll Ever Need

Very much disagree.

> This reveals the fallacy that coding standards are built on – that there is some kind of one true way of programming, ....

No, a coding standard establishes conventions for a project, so that people can more easily understand and maintain code written by others. Moving between coding conventions is jarring, and adjusting to it takes time & effort away from figuring out what code does or what is wrong with it.

Similarly, the fact that an entire novel (or website or ...) is set in a particular font does not mean that this is supposed to be the one true font; rather, consistency means we can simply read, and not be continually jarred by font changes.

I've recently come around to the Go way of thinking.. the coding standard is that the the code compiles and has been run through gofmt.

As a lifelong new-line-bracer, it was a bit of a pain for me to swallow some bits of the enforced Go syntax, but having the language tools be the ultimate arbiter of many coding standard decisions (things like function and variable names is still up to you) turns out to be great because virtually all of those decisions are just bike-shedding and having an enforced standard just eliminates all of that and makes it so much easier to read anyone else's Go code once you get used to the standards.

Proposing that code should be simple, brief, and elegant is not insightful. This is like a lawmaker saying: "Don't worry about writing down laws, let's simply always be just! It's easy!" It's not that easy. The details matter.

Codification and standardization are powerful tools that our entire civilization relies on. They minimize variation, thereby easing communication between interacting parties. If everyone is on the same page, it's simpler to express complex ideas. That's the whole point of writing coding standards.

Coding standards minimize superficial variation (where do the curly braces go? how do I format variable names?) so that we can talk about things that matter (how should this algorithm work? what are the side effects of this function?).

Of course, the other end of the spectrum is important too. Variation promotes innovation and creativity. It's cliche, but I think you have to find the right balance between codification and individual intuition. In addition, you should be willing to modify coding standards occasionally (just like all standards are revised and improved over time).

I always liked "Write code as if the next person who has to maintain it is a sociopath who knows where you live". Simplicity, Brevity, Elegance fits in that overarching ideal nicely.

I must say that this was a completely worthless posting and completely misses the point of coding conventions. - locked - stucked - one true way - never changes

WTF? What is he talking about? And somehow coding conventions inhibit innovation, exploration and creation? That's news to me.

Innovating and creating in languages like python is probably impossible in his opinnion, yes?

On teams I've had success with we've agreed on a style guide, peer reviewed code, participated discussion on a daily basis, and generally evolved the standards and practices as a group.

Agreeing on a style guide is important because it removes those issues from the daily discussion. We usually utilize an existing style guide that is agreed upon by the broader community as well. This doesn't close the door to "house rules", but provides a solid base line for discussing more important topics of design.

In matters of style, we also prefer to have some automated formatting when possible. I've know people to set up their own formatter for work, and run it through the "official" formatter to commit. Personally think that is crazy. I can adapt to almost any style, but if that is what somebody is passionate about, who am I to judge?

Hi there,

Love your blog and your engaging writing style. But coding standards? Sorry, in a global and outsourced world of enterprise apps, standard are as important as never before. I have to disagree.

This whole coding creativity thing is a myth when it comes to successful, scalable business applications. Creativity is for artists, who have no boundaries. Coders don't operate in such an artistic vacuum (operating system, SDK, business clients, users etc). There has to be such a thing as a disciplined coder - disciplined as in being restricted by boundaries and rules. Power needs control - in my world.

Keep going with the blog - I will certainly be yet another interested reader.

Kind regards, Michael

I like the 3-word simplicity of the OP's conclusion. In practice, however, what developers decide is "Simple", "Elegant" or "Succinct" (the noun of brevity, which escapes me here), doesn't always overlap. In fact, with the non-10x crowd, those three concepts are unfortunately non-existent.

It seems to me that coding standards have existed for the non-10x developer to stay in line with a hard-and-fast set of clunky rules to keep them from coloring too far outside the lines.

The older I get, the less I enjoy coding standards outside of the three he points out. I just wish they'd work for everyone.

The first thing that popped into my head after reading the headline: http://xkcd.com/927/

Same thought after reading the article.

"Elegance" is a slippery slope. I'd much prefer "Clarity".

Here's a stage I grew out of quick: "Don't fuck with code that works, no matter how much you want to fix the world".

wow, dude, you thought you broke through and have a higher level of understanding. Ya missed the next layer of meaning man! Go back and get yourself a nice size project with a nize size team, preferably 50% contracters from everywhere. Hand out no coding standard, go through some scrum cycles, see what you get.

The only (syntactic) coding standard you'll ever need is "Make your code look like the code around it!"

Consistency. Consistency. Consistency.

Clarity. Expressivity. Simplicity.