



























An industry veteran in my circles has recently made the rookie mistake1 of printing a warning from his code upon misuse. Surprisingly to nobody experienced, critical workflows soon came to a screeching halt.
It turned out that a program using his code prints something like “yay, done” upon exit, and scripts expect it to be the last thing it says. But now those warnings occasionally got printed from destructors or such, after the “yay, done”, making the scripts think the program failed.
One might think that this prompted people to fix the reported misuse, and that thought would be another rookie mistake. Instead, they were quick to point out that it’s hard to know where these warnings could come from, and we cannot risk all those critical workflows failing when some case of misuse surfaces in a new context.
I mean, you could grep to get an upper bound, and if you did, not that many places would come up. But one could then say, as some in fact did, that maybe you haven’t grepped everywhere you should have, and even the cases you did find are owned by many different teams, so we won’t get the fixes quickly enough, etc.
Several solutions were suggested by helpful high-ranking people:
When I was done scrolling his work chat with these helpful suggestions, our unfortunate industry veteran put on a melancholy smile and summarized the situation: “All means are fair except solving the problem.”2
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理,仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。