Articles covering the principles, practices, and methodologies of professional software development – from clean code and architecture to testing, design patterns, and modern development processes.
Practical insights for developers at all levels who want to build maintainable, scalable, and high-quality software.
In every mature .NET landscape, legacy projects represent both heritage and hazard. They once powered entire business models — now they silently consume time, budget, and attention. The decision to retire or modernize them isn’t about technology fashion. It’s about sustaining the organization’s capacity for value creation.
In the world of software development, there’s a recurring tension between discipline and improvisation. Somewhere along that spectrum lies a phenomenon increasingly referred to as Vibe Coding. The term evokes a style of development where engineers follow intuition and momentum rather than formal plans, processes, or design patterns.
It’s fast, fluid, and occasionally brilliant. But is it sustainable in a .NET-based enterprise context?
When we activated static code analysis for the first time in one of my last projects, the overwhelming number of warnings exceeded expectations and highlighted gaps in the code. Without making any changes, the project already had a significant number of warnings. After activating additional analyzers and updating some configurations, this number temporarily increased dramatically.
The high number of warnings was initially daunting, but we saw it as an opportunity to significantly improve our code quality. At first glance, it seemed easier to suppress or ignore these warnings. But as I often remind my team, “The code you create is a valuable legacy, so it’s important to build it carefully.” Ignoring warnings today creates obstacles for future developers—and that could very well include you six months down the line.
This experience reinforced the importance of managing warnings and errors systematically. Let me share some of the lessons we learned, the strategies we used to tame those 60,000 warnings, and how you can apply these techniques to your own projects.
In software development, there’s a silent debt that accrues interest over time, often hidden beneath layers of code and decisions made in haste or ignorance. This debt is aptly termed technical debt. Much like the german proverb, “Wer den Pfennig nicht ehrt, ist den Taler nicht wert”, (or the english equivalent, “A penny saved is a penny earned”) technical debt reminds us that small oversights or compromises in the present can snowball into significant challenges down the road. This article critically examines the parallels between financial principles and technical debt, emphasizing the importance of addressing both direct and indirect debt while understanding its distinction from external risks such as hacking or abuse.
As developers, we’re often tasked with maintaining and modernizing legacy codebases that were written long before some of the best practices of today—such as nullability annotations—were available. While modern C# now supports nullable reference types, enabling us to avoid the dreaded NullReferenceException, introducing this feature to existing, large codebases can be a challenge.
In this article, I’ll share my step-by-step approach for introducing nullability into a legacy .NET and C# project. You’ll learn how to apply nullability in a controlled, incremental manner using project-level settings, scoped annotations, and file/method-level directives, all while maintaining the integrity of your legacy codebase. After all, modernizing your code doesn’t have to be an all-or-nothing endeavor—gradual change is key to a successful transition. Let’s get started!