The Clean Code Trap: Why Your First Draft Should Be Ugly
I've been there. You watch that YouTube tutorial about SOLID principles, read "Clean Code" for the third time, and suddenly you're paralyzed. Every line you write feels wrong before you even finish typing it. Should this be a factory? Should I extract that into a service? Is this violating the single responsibility principle?
Here's the hard truth I learned after eight years in the trenches: trying to write clean code on your first draft is killing your progress. It's making you slower, less creative, and honestly—it's producing worse software. The original Reddit post that sparked this discussion hit a nerve because it's something every developer struggles with but few talk about openly.
In this article, we're going to unpack why this happens, what you should do instead, and how to actually build better software faster. This isn't about abandoning clean code principles—it's about using them at the right time.
The Junior Developer's Dilemma: Over-Engineering Before Understanding
Let me paint you a picture. A junior developer gets assigned a feature: "Add user notifications to our app." Immediately, their mind goes to patterns. Should this be an observer pattern? Maybe a pub/sub system? What about using an event bus? They start designing interfaces, abstract classes, and dependency injection before they've even written a single line of actual notification logic.
This is what I call "architecture astronaut syndrome"—designing systems for problems you don't actually have yet. The original poster nailed it when they mentioned juniors trying to make a simple To-Do list look like enterprise architecture. It happens because we've been taught that good developers write clean code, and clean code means using all these patterns and principles.
But here's what nobody tells you: you can't design a good abstraction until you understand the concrete problem. And you can't understand the concrete problem until you've actually solved it at least once, usually in the messiest way possible.
The Senior Developer's Secret: Ugly First Drafts
Here's my actual workflow, and it's probably different from what you'd expect. When I start a new feature, I create what I call a "spike solution." It's a single file, often a single massive method, filled with hardcoded values, print statements, and zero concern for architecture. I'm not thinking about SOLID, DRY, or any other acronym. I'm thinking about one thing: does this core logic actually work?
Let me give you a real example from last month. I needed to add file validation to an upload feature. My first draft looked something like this:
function validateFile(file) {
// Hardcoded test file
const testFile = {
name: 'test.pdf',
size: 5000000,
type: 'application/pdf'
};
// Just checking if basic validation works
if (!testFile.name) return false;
if (testFile.size > 10000000) return false;
if (!testFile.type.includes('pdf')) return false;
console.log('Basic validation passed!');
return true;
}It's ugly. It's not reusable. It's not clean. But in 15 minutes, I proved the validation logic worked. Only then did I start asking the right questions: What file types should we support? Should size limits be configurable? How do we handle error messages?
Why This Approach Actually Produces Cleaner Code
This might sound counterintuitive, but starting with ugly code leads to cleaner final code. Here's why: when you refactor after something works, you're refactoring based on actual requirements, not hypothetical ones. You've seen the edge cases. You've encountered the weird data. You understand what actually needs to be abstracted versus what can stay simple.
Think about it this way: if you design an abstraction before you've used it, you're guessing. You're guessing what parameters it needs, what methods it should have, what exceptions might occur. And let's be honest—we're terrible guessers. Most of the time, we either over-engineer (building flexibility we never use) or under-engineer (missing critical functionality).
When you refactor working code, you're not guessing anymore. You know exactly what the code needs to do because you just made it do that thing. The abstractions you create fit the actual problem, not your imagined version of the problem.
The Psychology of Progress: Momentum Over Perfection
There's a psychological aspect here that doesn't get enough attention. Writing ugly code first gives you momentum. Every time you make something work—even if it's hacky—you get a dopamine hit. You feel progress. That momentum carries you through the harder parts of the project.
Contrast that with the clean-code-first approach. You spend hours designing the perfect architecture, then you try to implement it and hit a roadblock. Maybe your abstraction doesn't quite fit. Maybe you need a parameter you didn't anticipate. The momentum stalls. You start questioning your design. You refactor before you've even finished. It's demoralizing.
I've seen developers spend three days designing a "perfect" solution that then takes two weeks to implement because of all the unforeseen issues. I'd rather spend one day building an ugly but working version, then two days refactoring it into something clean. Same three days total, but with working software after day one instead of just diagrams and interfaces.
When to Apply Clean Code Principles (The Right Way)
Okay, so I'm not saying clean code principles are worthless. Far from it. I'm saying they're a refinement tool, not a first-draft tool. Here's when I actually apply them:
During refactoring: This is the main event. Once I have working code, I go through it with clean code principles in mind. Can I extract this into a function? Should these be in a class? Does this method do too much?
During code review: If I'm reviewing someone else's code, I'm looking for clean code violations. But crucially, I'm only suggesting changes if they improve maintainability. Not all violations need fixing.
When fixing bugs: If I'm in a piece of code fixing a bug and I notice it's messy, I'll clean it up. But I'm careful not to refactor unrelated code—that's how you introduce new bugs.
The key insight here is timing. Clean code principles are most valuable when you're improving existing code, not when you're exploring unknown territory.
Practical Workflow: From Messy to Maintainable
Let me walk you through my actual step-by-step process. This is what I do on pretty much every feature:
Step 1: The Spike - Write the absolute simplest, most direct implementation possible. Use hardcoded values. Copy-paste code. Write everything in one function if that's easiest. The only goal is to make it work for one specific case.
Step 2: Make It Work for Real Cases - Replace hardcoded values with actual parameters. Handle a few real-world scenarios. Add basic error handling. It's still messy, but now it's actually usable.
Step 3: First Refactor Pass - Look for obvious duplication and extract it. Rename variables to be clearer. Break up giant functions. This is where I start applying DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principles.
Step 4: Second Refactor Pass - Now think about architecture. Should this be in a separate class or module? What are the dependencies? This is where SOLID principles come in.
Step 5: Polish - Add tests, documentation, and final touches. Make sure everything follows team conventions.
Notice that clean code principles don't enter the picture until step 3 at the earliest. Steps 1 and 2 are about solving the problem, not writing pretty code.
Common Objections and How to Address Them
I know what some of you are thinking. "But what about technical debt?" "Won't this create messy codebases?" "Don't we need to think about scalability from the start?" Let me address these directly.
Technical debt: Yes, ugly code is technical debt. But here's the thing—not all debt is bad. Taking on a small, short-term debt to validate an approach is smart. Taking on massive, long-term debt because you designed the wrong abstraction is stupid. My approach creates intentional, manageable debt that gets paid off quickly.
Messy codebases: This only creates messy codebases if you never refactor. The whole point is that you do refactor—just after it works, not before. In my experience, codebases where developers try to write clean code first are often worse because they're filled with wrong abstractions that nobody dares to change.
Scalability: You can't design for scalability until you know what needs to scale. Premature optimization is the root of all evil, and that includes architectural optimization. Build it simple first, then make it scalable when you actually have scaling problems.
Tools That Can Help (When Used Correctly)
Some developers mentioned tools in the original discussion, and I want to address them. Linters, formatters, and static analysis tools are great—but they're for the refinement phase, not the exploration phase.
When I'm spiking a solution, I often turn off my linter. Those red squiggles are distracting when I'm trying to think through a problem. Once I have something working, I turn everything back on and let the tools help me clean it up.
As for books, I still recommend Clean Code by Robert Martin. It's a fantastic resource. But read it as a guide for refactoring, not as a prescription for first drafts.
What About Team Environments?
"This is fine for solo work," you might say, "but what about on a team? Don't we need standards?" Absolutely. But here's how I handle it on my team.
We use feature branches. When someone is working on a new feature, they can commit whatever ugly code they want to their branch. The only rule is that it can't break the build. When they're ready to merge, they need to clean it up to our standards. This gives them the freedom to explore without pressure, while still maintaining code quality in the main branch.
We also do something called "spike and stabilize" for complex features. One developer writes the spike solution to prove the approach works. Then, either they or another developer refactors it into production-ready code. This separates the exploration phase from the refinement phase at an organizational level.
Your New Mindset: Progress Over Perfection
If you take one thing from this article, let it be this: value progress over perfection. Working software—even ugly working software—is always better than perfect software that doesn't exist yet.
The next time you start a new feature, give yourself permission to write bad code. Seriously. Tell yourself, "I'm going to write the ugliest, hackiest version of this that could possibly work." Get it working. Then, and only then, make it clean.
You'll be surprised at how much faster you move. You'll be surprised at how much better your final architecture is. And you'll definitely be surprised at how much more enjoyable programming becomes when you're not constantly second-guessing every line of code.
After eight years, this is the single biggest productivity improvement I've made in my workflow. It transformed me from a slow, perfectionist developer into someone who consistently delivers quality software on time. Try it for your next feature. Write ugly first. Your future self will thank you.
