When you look at bad code, there's a part of your body that reacts to it. You can just feel it, in your spleen. This is code you don't want to maintain. This is code you don't want to see in your code base.

Sometimes, you get that reaction to code, and then you think about the code, and say: "Well, it's not that bad," but your spleen still throbs, because you know if you had to maintain this code, it'd be constant, low-level pain. Maybe you ignore your spleen, because hey, a quick glance, it doesn't seem that bad.

Universally Unique Identifiers are a very practical solution to unique IDs. With 10^30 possible values, the odds of having a collision are, well, astronomical. They're fast enough to generate, random enough to be unique, and there are so many of them that- well, they may not be universally unique through all time, but they're certainly unique enough.

Right?

Imagine you were browsing a C++ codebase and found a signature in a header file like this:

int max (int a, int b, int c, int d);

Steven was working on a temp contract for a government contractor, developing extensions to an ERP system. That ERP system was developed by whatever warm bodies happened to be handy, which meant the last "tech lead" was a junior developer who had no supervision, and before that it was a temp who was only budgeted to spend 2 hours a week on that project.

This meant that it was a great deal of spaghetti code, mashed together with a lot of special-case logic, and attempts to have some sort of organization even if that organization made no sense. Which is why, for example, all of the global constants for the application were required to be in a class Constants.

When Andy inherited some C# code from a contracting firm, he gave it a quick skim. He saw a bunch of methods with names like IsAvailable or CanPerform…, but he also saw that it was essentially random as to whether or not these methods returned bool or string.

That didn't seem like a good thing, so he started to take a deeper look, and that's when he found this.