Skip to main content
7 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Dec 3, 2018 at 17:43 comment added Warbo @KorayTugay I disagree with the quote if treated as dogma (since I disagree with all dogma; but not dogmatically ;) ). Not sure if I'd disagree with Nathaniel himself, since I've never met him (and hadn't heard of him before now). I generally follow the "ideas > events > people" inequality).
Dec 1, 2018 at 21:24 comment added Marco13 I like this differentiation. It's not always clear, and there are always "border cases". But in general, I'm also a fan of "building blocks" (often in form of static methods) that are purely functional and low-level, and in contrast to that, deciding about the "configuring parameters and hooks" is usually that where you have to build some structures that ask to be justified.
Nov 30, 2018 at 19:11 comment added Koray Tugay I see so you disagree with the Nathaniel Borenstein, the owner of the quote. I am tryting to understand slowly I think by reading all these responses and the discussions.
Nov 30, 2018 at 7:34 comment added Warbo We can't say which 'destroy city' is "better" without more info: destroyBaghdad is a one-off script (or at least, it's idempotent). Maybe destroying any city would be an improvement, but what if destroyBaghdad works by flooding the Tigris? That may be reusable for Mosul and Basra, but not for Mecca or Atlanta.
Nov 30, 2018 at 7:21 comment added Warbo Your first take was fine, since the requirement was a one-off script to 'check something'. It fails her 'ethical' test, but she fails the 'no dogma' test. "She might say..." is inventing requirements You Ain't Gonna Need.
Nov 29, 2018 at 23:38 comment added Koray Tugay Can we say that you agree that my first take was fine, where even the year was hardcoded? Or if you were initially implementing that requirement, would you make the year a parameter in your first take?
Nov 29, 2018 at 23:20 history answered Warbo CC BY-SA 4.0