967
Shiiieeettt....... (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
84 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

It's not that we want to ignore warnings. It's just that most warnings take time to fix.

There's only so many hours in a day. And we have to accept technical debt in order to deliver, and then pay it off later.

My job does it well by doing a "spring" and "summer" cleaning where we can turn out 100+ warnings into the single digits. Then busy season happens again and we're back to 200+.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    It’s not that we want to ignore warnings.

    Speak for yourself, I promise you the team I work on actively ignores warnings and doesn't even want to solve them as they pop-up. Being told you can't compare doubles (because of precision loss) and ignoring it is on the developer and isn't even that hard to fix. Most of our warnings come from shit like that.

    Like, I get it. It's probably not worth it to hunt down every "unused variable" warning (especially in an API where we used to have a variable for it and we don't use it anymore and we don't want to break the existing API so we just leave it there), but there's things that are just trivial to fix when you're working on code that's right next to it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent