Rules are meant to be broken, and so is your code.

Self-governance has long been the glue that binds our society together. Rules can’t be set for everything. Sometimes, it’s because we’re unaware of the specific rules that need to be in place, and other times, it’s simply because strict enforcement is impractical.

“Rules are meant to be broken” may sound cliché, but it raises a question: If they weren’t, why do we have punishments set for when these rules are broken? Self-governance offers an alternative approach. It encourages people to act in accordance with what is morally right, reducing the likelihood of rule-breaking in the first place.

Be your own keeper

In my school days, the phrase “Be your brother’s keeper” was one our teachers used often. While on the surface, it appears benign, its true intent was to encourage students to enforce the rules established by the school.

“Snitches get stitches.” Maybe not so serious for secondary school boys, but it underscores the social pressure to remain silent when wrongdoing is witnessed because you get labeled names like “Harry Potter” (a-reporter), and you get excluded from all sorts of cool things your friends do.

Is this a bad thing? I have no opinion on that as it is a matter of perspective. What’s clear, however, is being your own keeper to prevent the need for blame, and if society manages to become utopian enough where everyone is their keeper, well, that’s progress.

Some of us are smart and sophisticated enough to bypass most security checks and balances in place. Now the morality question arises: should I do it because I can and not get caught, or should I just do the right thing?

In software development, the “it works, but I don’t know why” situation where you know if you leave the code, it might break if someone else comes to add a feature or work on it. I believe there is a general consensus to leave it as it is.

Chores vs. Responsibility

When I moved away from home and authorities, i.e., my parents or secondary school teachers, to live independently because of university, I had a shift in perspective.

At home, even though you have to do them, you sometimes wonder why you have to do them. But living alone, I found myself willingly doing all that I would normally call chores and feeling good about myself at the end of it, a “responsible adult,” when in fact, I had just done chores without my parents requiring me to do them.

The thought of “Why do we have to change it if it works fine?” that often arose when my mother requested maintenance for something that isn’t faulty or broken has evolved into a mindset of optimization.

“Just because something works doesn’t mean it can’t be improved.”

This mentality extends to my professional life. Refactoring code that isn’t broken or optimizing software that already runs really well is one of the times I do these things by myself without being asked to.

However, when my project manager does assign these tasks, I occasionally ask myself, “WHY??” Nevertheless, I understand the value of addressing potential issues before they become significant problems.

Interestingly, my PM has given neutral remarks on my love for refactoring. I had to explain to him that I had free time, so why not fix the spaghetti before I had to come back to it another day. Or maybe I love coding too much :)

Breaking rules.

Innovation often necessitates breaking the rules. It sometimes requires you to do something out of the ordinary.

Think of the hit series Silicon Valley, where Peter defied convention by breaking the Weissman score with his compression algorithm, ultimately winning the TechCrunch competition.

Well, that was celebrated, but many times in history, innovation wasn’t readily accepted. See, for example, the preference for monoalphabetic ciphers disregarding Vigenere 26 polyalphabetic encryption.

At other times in history, innovators sometimes faced punishment before their contributions were recognized.

Consider Apple’s bold move in removing physical keyboards from mobile devices — a decision initially ridiculed by industry giants like BlackBerry and Nokia. These rule-breakers are often referred to as “disruptors,” individuals who bring about profound change through innovative thinking. They challenge established norms, not with malicious intent, but to drive positive transformation within their respective industries.

Innovation in software is akin to breaking traditional rules.

It’s about challenging the status quo, pushing boundaries, and defying the notion that “if it works, don’t change it.”

Just like Silicon Valley disruptors, who revolutionize industries by breaking conventions, software developers often refactor code, optimize, and innovate, not because they have to, but because they can.

This constant pursuit of improvement and the willingness to break old rules drive progress in the world of software, where change is the only constant.