Very good talk and observations about the dogmatic nature of software development in general. "Less moving parts" and reducing the complexity... Bonus: open and honest criticism about the "Clean code" book.
A good talk about intentionality, meaning, and texts as literature, and importance of details. Incidentally, what was the meaning of the title "Could this be done with less moving parts?": - smaller moving parts? - fewer moving parts? - parts that don't move as much?
note to future self: let the created abstractions (functions and others) be as easy to use and hiding complexity as well as file operations. no need to think what's below, easy to understand usage and meaning (intention too)
I completely disagree on the point that breaking a codebase down into smaller, well-named methods makes it more obscure and increases cognitive load. Quite the opposite; it hides the details so your mind only needs to focus on the level you're currently operating at. It's why string.Contains("x") reads better than "string.IndexOf("x") != -1", for example.
A talk so good that it is uploaded twice!
... just to increase the complexity :P
I thought this looked familiar
That talk really resonated with me. Will definitely check out the book recommendations.
Very good talk and observations about the dogmatic nature of software development in general.
"Less moving parts" and reducing the complexity...
Bonus: open and honest criticism about the "Clean code" book.
What sounds right is not always right - those words are sounds especially strong regarding the Clean Code.
44:17 I wish more people followed this advice
Very clever! Thank you for sharing your insight and experience.
A good talk about intentionality, meaning, and texts as literature, and importance of details.
Incidentally, what was the meaning of the title "Could this be done with less moving parts?":
- smaller moving parts?
- fewer moving parts?
- parts that don't move as much?
I wish more developers watched this
note to future self: let the created abstractions (functions and others) be as easy to use and hiding complexity as well as file operations. no need to think what's below, easy to understand usage and meaning (intention too)
provide as much value
SOFTWARE REALLY IS LITERATURE! 🌼
Going after uncle bob was uncalled for.
John Ousterhout > Robert "Uncle Bob" Martin
I completely disagree on the point that breaking a codebase down into smaller, well-named methods makes it more obscure and increases cognitive load. Quite the opposite; it hides the details so your mind only needs to focus on the level you're currently operating at. It's why string.Contains("x") reads better than "string.IndexOf("x") != -1", for example.
If it's done solely to avoid repetition and reduce the number of lines, yes, as long as you can also name it appropriately.
@vargonian where/when did he claim that?
"Everything just sucks..."
Indeed, what right does he have to call bloated over complicated enterprise(tm) code for... over complicated!
The nerves this guy has!