Sometimes, my boss will complain to us:
Why do we need such a long time to implement a feature?
Actually, the feature has been implemented in another application before, you just need to copy and paste codes from there. The cost should be low.
It's really a hard question, because copy and paste codes is not such a simple thing in my point of view.
Do you have any good reasons to explain this to your non-technical boss?
If you find a bug in your copy-paste code, you will need to fix it every place you did and hope you can remember them all (this also holds for changed requirements).
If you keep logic in one place, it is easier to change when needed (so if you decide that the application needs updating, you only do it in one place).
Have your boss read about the DRY principle (Don't Repeat Yourself).
What you are describing sounds like the perfect use for libraries, where you share code and only keep it in one place.
I would only ever copy-paste code if I intended to refactor it soon after - making sure I later on extracted common code so I could reuse as much logic as possible. And by soon after, I mean minutes and hours later, not days and weeks.
ifs there, and most tooling doesn't support clone detection at this point.
You would be far better off sharing the code by building a library rather than copying the code using copy and paste.
You'll still gain a speed advantage over re-writing (look up DRY) but will only have one place to maintain the code.
The obvious reason is that you take on a 'debt' for the future: any change you ever need to make in the code (not just bugfixes, any change) will now be twice as expensive to do because you have to update two places - and more risky because you WILL forget one of them eventually. In other words, making it work faster now will make your work even slower in the future, which can be good business sense but usually isn't.
But the more important reason is that the assumption "this is the same as that" is more often than not subtly wrong. Whenever your code depends on unspoken assumptions to be correct, copying it into another place results in errors unless these assumptions also hold in the new place. Therefore, the pasted code is often wrong from the start and not just after the next change.
Design-wise, copy-pasted code is certainly a disaster, with the potential to cause lots of problems in the future. But you're asking why it takes you a lot of work right now, the answer is: because it's never just copying and pasting.
If the original code was written in order to be reused, as a fairly independent library, with flexibility and client use in mind - then great, but that's not copy-pasting, that's using a code library. Real code copy-pasting usually goes more like this:
In summary, existing code which can't be used directly can, at best, serve as a good reference for writing similar code. It certainly can't be lifted whole and expected to work in a completely different system. In general, it's a safe assumption that any code which has been written and completed, should be messed with as little as possible - even when it's a copy and not the original itself.
If you want to base your project on copy-pasting, you've got to code to begin with in a manner that will enable easy reuse, without copying that original code and messing around with it. That's worth doing, and if that's what your boss is expecting, then you both need to make sure that that's how you design and work in the first place.
copy and pasting is a disaster waiting to happen. Your boss should evaluate the price of shipping early with respect to the price of having broken code shipped to the end-user very soon.
If you have already implemented the features and you need to copy and paste to reuse them, it sounds like you have done something wrong. Can't you put these features in a library so you can reuse them without copy/paste?
The DRY principle (Don't Repeat Yourself): DRY on wikipedia.
"Every piece of knowledge must have a single, unambiguous, authoritative representation within a system."
It sounds to me like the worst misconception your non-technical boss has, is that your job is predominantly typing. They think you can save a lot of time by eliminating typing.
I think the best education you could give this person is to point out all of the work you do that isn't typing. Even if most of that work usually happens invisibly, in your head, at the same time as typing.
Sure, eliminating the typing will save some time. But then the much larger, non-typing, part of your job gets bigger and eats up any time saving and more besides.
Are you sure your boss wants to hear about DRY principle, bugs and other tech stuff?
That kind of comments you usually hear when your boss or company underestimated time needed to complete some project. And based on wrong estimation a contract was signed, etc. In most cases programmers weren't involved into estimations.
Why this happens? Sometimes project sponsor has too small budget. Maybe a business process you are automating using software isn't worth your team effort. Managers generally tend to be very closed for bad news in such cases. At the beginning of the project there is wishful thinking. Then managers try to blame programmers. In your case indirectly via copy-and-paste. In extreme cases this is called a death march.
Copying and pasting code usually leads to Programming by Coincidence
I think "another application" is key here, if the other application is already tested and in use, it should not be changed to use a common library, therefore you can’t share code with it.
Within the same application, “copy and paste” is bad, but between code bases that are developed by different teams or with different release cycles “copy and paste” can be the best option.
I worked for a similar company. Being a trainee, I didn't know better then, so when I started a new project, my boss also suggested to paste the code from somewhere else. Well, as you may think, the whole software was quite a mess, up to the point that when you tried to fix a bug, two new bugs appeared.
Even if the other application already has the feature you need, the code for that feature might simply not fit into your current application without a major rewrite. It's like taking the motor of a Ford and trying to fit it into a Toyota. Generally, there is a rule of thumb that if you have to modify more than 25% of the code you copy, it's better (cheaper) to rewrite it from scratch.
Extracting the code in question into a library sound compelling, but it might be more difficult than it sounds, depending on how that other system is built. E.g. the code for that feature might be hard to extract because it interfaces a lot of other code in unclean ways (e.g. by accessing lots of global variables etc.)
There are trade-offs between speed of development of the immediate functionality in front of you (especially when the application is small), and longer term maintenance costs as the application grows.
Copy and paste is quicker for the immediate functionality, but will costs you dearly as the application grows in size, in terms of fixing bugs and making system wide changes and maintaining workflows between different components of the application.
That is the argument that business owners need to hear. It is similar to the accepted costs of maintaining a fleet of vehicles, however, with software, the broken aspects of the software architecture are generally hidden to the business side, and can only be seen by developers.
Tell your boss that the part of the each and every variable name includes the name of the old project and now you have to change them all, manually. If your boss doesn't know (or wants to know) why copy/paste is bad he/she might as well believe that :)
Yeah, the biggest problem is that it isn't just copy and paste - its copy then paste then slightly modify.
Then later on when one of the pasted variants has a problem, it gets changed. Then later on, another variant gets changed.
Then, you find out that all the variants have to change cause the original copy had bugs. Now you are well and truly screwed because all the pasted areas are now not the same.
And wouldn't you know it, this kind of crappy coding is usually almost entirely void of comments.
To me, the difference is that when you have multiple copies of code doing the same thing, what you have is a bunch of code. When you only have one piece of code doing each particular thing, then you have a system.
Behaviors of a system can be changed with single point modifications quite easily - changing the behavior of a bunch of code requires a bunch of code.
I like systems, not a bunch of code.
He's right that if the team has implemented similar functionality before, repeating it will be much easier the 2nd time.
However, you should probably explain that each application is different. Just because you installed a door in one house doesn't mean you can install another door in another house in no time flat - you will be faster because of the experience (# doors installed), but it will still take time to get you equipment, mount the door, make sure it is plumb, and screw it into the frame.
in my company, we always work with classes and methods, and make technical documentation for them. I think its the best practice if u can use your own svn search aplications with good keys to find method class used before :)
