Compiler VS LGV_MeetingSDK

> I'm a big believer in technical continuity.

So am I. D is designed to be an easy transition from C and C-With-Classes. For example, here is some code in C that was translated to D (it's part of the DMD compiler):

C:

https://github.com/DigitalMars/Compiler/blob/dmc-cxx/dm/src/...

D:

https://github.com/DigitalMars/Compiler/blob/master/dm/src/d...

They look pretty much the same. The code generated is the same. In those repositories you can also see how I translated the C versions to D with plenty of examples.

The biggest impediment is the C preprocessor. You wouldn't really want to carry that forward.

After removing dependency on the C preprocessor, most of the work is global search/replacing things like `->` to `.`.

If there's no default value in either the runtime, or the app defaults, then I use the hardcoded default.

That's actually fairly typical advanced Swift. I used to rail against it, but now, I do it all the time. I also tend to use tail closures a lot (that's when you declare a closure at the end of a function parameter list, so you can simply open the closure as a function result). That's also something I used to rail against.

If someone wants to maintain my code, then they need to have some decent chops. Usually, that's me. I will often revisit code that I wrote, six months ago (or more), and have learned how to read it. I write code that I want to see again; not some junior programmer.

[0] https://github.com/LittleGreenViper/LGV_MeetingSDK/blob/e91b...

I write in layers and modules. Each one is well-done, fairly insular, and coupling is as loose as possible. A lot of my refactoring is about reducing coupling, and increasing autonomy.

Bottom layers can often be left alone for years, while top layers can see almost constant change.

Right now, I’m working on the home stretch of an app (backend/native iOS frontend) that has been under development for a couple of years. A lot of the reason for that time, is because the people I’m working with, didn’t really know what they wanted, when we started (sound familiar?). It has undergone several massive pivots during this time, but we have settled on an operational model, and it’s been pretty much pure refinement, for the last three or four months.

I just rewrote a major backend driver[0], to make the server connection smoother and have a simpler asynchronous behavior. It will also make it easier to integrate other types of backends, in the future, but I know better than to think it is “future proof,” but it affords a structure that will be quite amenable to change. The main app is closed-source, but many of its components are open.

It took about a month to write the driver, and it was sort of akin to reconstruction of a bridge, while traffic was going over it. If I hadn’t done the original design, in a modular, API-driven manner, it never could have been done, but I’ve also done exactly this, numerous times. The old design[1] was too restrictive, and is one of my older projects. I wanted to get it out of my app (even though I wrote it).

The big deal about this project, and the key to being able to pivot, is that it has been released through Apple TestFlight, since it was about a month old. I’m coming up on a thousand TestFlight releases. This allows the non-tech stakeholders (the ones that don’t know what they want) to run the app, as a release-quality application, and provide really meaningful feedback (like “gee … I really thought it was a good idea, but you’re right. It sucks.”). Sometimes, there’s no substitute for giving someone what they want, to convince them that it’s not what they want.

Needless to say, a great deal of high-quality work has been binned, but we haven’t been running a brand-destroying lashup MVP. The project has been internal-only, this whole time. I am quite aware that this method of development is not commercially friendly, in today’s development environment, but we have the luxury of the Principal (Yours Trooly) working for free, and knowing full well, what he signed up for, when we started, and designing accordingly.

The end result will be an application that will enjoy almost jaw-dropping Quality, out the door, with many thousands of test runs, on shipping code, for two years. We’re finding the “rough spots,” now that we are in the home stretch, and still have the cosmetics (theme, aesthetic design, interface, etc.) to go before widening to our first test phase (which will also be TestFlight).

Since the “team” doing the lion’s share of the work consists of one person, the Quality is of paramount importance. It’s a pretty big project, and this scope is usually implemented by a much larger team.

When I write something, I can generally leave it alone, until I decide to revisit it, on my terms.

[0] https://github.com/LittleGreenViper/LGV_MeetingSDK

[1] https://github.com/bmlt-enabled/BMLTiOSLib

I tend to make it up as I go along ([0], [1]). It works for me (I just finished up a new SDK, using this technique[2]).

However, this would not work for many outfits. It’s just the way that I work.

WFM. YMMV.

[0] https://littlegreenviper.com/miscellany/evolutionary-design-...

[1] https://littlegreenviper.com/miscellany/forensic-design-docu...

[2] https://github.com/LittleGreenViper/LGV_MeetingSDK