4 ms·

To anyone who's planning to use this or Atwood's article on writing less code as a little red book: For the love of god, please use some common sense when repe

To anyone who's planning to use this or Atwood's article on writing less code as a little red book: For the love of god, please use some common sense when repeating mantras like "write less code." I've seen this used to justify all sorts of ridiculous shit, like dropping basic security measures (write less code! YAGNI! Why would someone try SQL injection/XSS against our site anyway?!?). If I propose something and your thought-terminating cliche response is some form of "YAGNI," I hate you.

jonahx 10y ago
"If I propose something and your thought-terminating cliche response is some form of "YAGNI," I hate you." This has been my experience too. While the concept has value, I find most people that throw the term around do so as a justification for not thinking much. To armchair psychologize a bit, I think that enthusiastically embracing an acronym which, whatever its conceptual merits, is just so lame-sounding correlates negatively with taste, and taste correlates, albeit imperfectly, with programming skill, especially the skill of writing readable code.
- gsmethells 10y ago
  So you're saying the DRY Principle is not worth harping on? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_repeat_yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_repeat_yourself
  - jonahx 10y ago
    Nah, DRY >> YAGNI. It's a short, easily pronounced English word whose meaning is a nice metaphorical fit for the concept expressed by the acronym. You can argue acronyms in general are lame, but I'm not taking that hard line.
- stcredzero 10y ago
  Applying YAGNI to security should be an immediate red flag. As I say in a cousin comment, good taste is just 3rd order laziness. You're doing less by avoiding future trouble. To armchair psychologize a bit, I think that enthusiastically embracing an acronym which, whatever its conceptual merits, is just so lame-sounding correlates negatively with taste Wouldn't you prioritize conceptual taste over aesthetic taste? YAGNI probably sounds goofy because it was created in the late 90's. It was part of the original Extreme Programming formula. The concept is as solid as such concepts get, however.
  - jonahx 10y ago
    > Wouldn't you prioritize conceptual taste over aesthetic taste? YAGNI probably sounds goofy because it was created in the late 90's. It was part of the original Extreme Programming formula. Sure, my point was they're related (usually). > The concept is as solid as such concepts get, however. It's useful in many cases, yes. Solid? No. It requires far too much attention to context, and experience, to apply it wisely all the time. That is to say, YAGNI is invoked in defense of bad decisions as often as it is of good ones. That was the grandparent's point.
    - stcredzero 10y ago
      Sure, my point was they're related (usually). Sounds a little like you generally stop at the aesthetic level. The map isn't the territory, and the signals aren't the actual internal mental state of the person. Since you say "usually," how have you been accumulating data about this relationship? It's useful in many cases, yes. Solid? No. It requires far too much attention to context, and experience, to apply it wisely all the time. Hmmm. You should be making exactly this sort of decision all the time. The major task of a developer, as I see it after doing this for 36 years, is to pay a lot of attention to context and apply what you've learned by experience wisely. Erring on the side of caution and waiting until there's evidence you need something isn't a bad 1st order heuristic. I would label people who consistently stop at the 1st order heuristic and go no farther as "shallow."
      - jonahx 10y ago
        > Sounds a little like you generally stop at the aesthetic level. No, it doesn't sound like that at all. You've just decided to read it that way and make an ad-hominem argument instead of engaging with the statement itself. > Hmmm. You should be making exactly this sort of decision all the time. The major task of a developer, as I see it after doing this for 36 years, is to pay a lot of attention to context and apply what you've learned by experience wisely. Erring on the side of caution and waiting until there's evidence you need something isn't a bad 1st order heuristic. I would label people who consistently stop at the 1st order heuristic and go no farther as "shallow." I agree with everything you said, and have not said anything that contradicts it. It's a good heuristic. And it's only that. And lots of people apply it poorly.
gerbilly 10y ago
>For the love of god, please use some common sense when repeating mantras like "write less code." To be fair the author said write less _damn_ code. Regular code, however, is fine.[1] [1] Even better if your code is blessed.
- brightball 10y ago
  Perl fan?
- jakobegger 10y ago
  Write blessed code?
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    As an alternative, you could use strict.
collyw 10y ago
I took it as a general rule (one which I try to follow myself), but that doesn't make it an excuse for forgetting about security or other concerns.
sherjilozair 10y ago
The proper YAGNI reply to this would be to use a proper library or work in the right abstraction layer so that you don't have to worry about SQL injection. For instance, Django provides the csrf_token which can be dropped in. That's still less code and secure.
- stcredzero 10y ago
  Right. There's a world of difference between a mature, well maintained database library and some random goofy thing to post to social media written by newb coders. A corollary to writing less code is doing less debugging -- and furthermore, exploiting freely available code that represents 1000's of hours of debugging already done for you. Good taste is just a form of 3rd order laziness.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    > Good taste is just a form of 3rd order laziness. Great line! Saved in my quotes file.
- mrec 10y ago
  I don't think that's a YAGNI reply, it's a don't-reinvent-the-wheel or anti-NIH reply.
- contravariant 10y ago
  I think the only proper YAGNI reply would be not to use any kind of user input. Of course, only if you actually don't need it.
msie 10y ago
Depends on what you propose...
mrec 10y ago
OK, but at the same time by automatically dismissing a YAGNI objection as a "thought-terminating cliché" you'll end up with different sorts of ridiculous shit. IME, the YAGNI principle is most useful with new-ish developers who've been taught certain patterns but haven't grasped the motivation for them and so can't judge when the overhead is worth it. In Java-land we'd be talking about the old every-class-must-implement-an-interface-and-come-from-a-factory clichés. It's not that it's a bad pattern, just that until you have multiple implementations and/or a need for DI it probably isn't worth the source bloat. In that situation I think YAGNI is exactly the right objection, and I'm not sure what would take its place if it became widely Considered Harmful.
- CarpetBench 10y ago
  Sorry, I should've clarified - I'm not opposed to the principle, in moderation of course. You're hitting on places where it is quite useful. It's incredibly mind-numbing when it's being used to justify laziness and short-sightedness. Worse, it's not exactly a misuse of the phrase, as per the original XP article: > Always implement things when you actually need them Security is, as an example, one of those things where you'd face a disaster if you just implemented it when you actually needed it (i.e. when an attack occurred). YAGNI is incredibly short-sighted in situations where rectifying the situation later will be an absolute nightmare (or just impossible). An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and all that.

jonahx 10y ago

"If I propose something and your thought-terminating cliche response is some form of "YAGNI," I hate you." This has been my experience too. While the concept has value, I find most people that throw the term around do so as a justification for not thinking much. To armchair psychologize a bit, I think that enthusiastically embracing an acronym which, whatever its conceptual merits, is just so lame-sounding correlates negatively with taste, and taste correlates, albeit imperfectly, with programming skill, especially the skill of writing readable code.

gsmethells 10y ago
So you're saying the DRY Principle is not worth harping on? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_repeat_yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_repeat_yourself
- jonahx 10y ago
  Nah, DRY >> YAGNI. It's a short, easily pronounced English word whose meaning is a nice metaphorical fit for the concept expressed by the acronym. You can argue acronyms in general are lame, but I'm not taking that hard line.
stcredzero 10y ago
Applying YAGNI to security should be an immediate red flag. As I say in a cousin comment, good taste is just 3rd order laziness. You're doing less by avoiding future trouble. To armchair psychologize a bit, I think that enthusiastically embracing an acronym which, whatever its conceptual merits, is just so lame-sounding correlates negatively with taste Wouldn't you prioritize conceptual taste over aesthetic taste? YAGNI probably sounds goofy because it was created in the late 90's. It was part of the original Extreme Programming formula. The concept is as solid as such concepts get, however.
- jonahx 10y ago
  > Wouldn't you prioritize conceptual taste over aesthetic taste? YAGNI probably sounds goofy because it was created in the late 90's. It was part of the original Extreme Programming formula. Sure, my point was they're related (usually). > The concept is as solid as such concepts get, however. It's useful in many cases, yes. Solid? No. It requires far too much attention to context, and experience, to apply it wisely all the time. That is to say, YAGNI is invoked in defense of bad decisions as often as it is of good ones. That was the grandparent's point.
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    Sure, my point was they're related (usually). Sounds a little like you generally stop at the aesthetic level. The map isn't the territory, and the signals aren't the actual internal mental state of the person. Since you say "usually," how have you been accumulating data about this relationship? It's useful in many cases, yes. Solid? No. It requires far too much attention to context, and experience, to apply it wisely all the time. Hmmm. You should be making exactly this sort of decision all the time. The major task of a developer, as I see it after doing this for 36 years, is to pay a lot of attention to context and apply what you've learned by experience wisely. Erring on the side of caution and waiting until there's evidence you need something isn't a bad 1st order heuristic. I would label people who consistently stop at the 1st order heuristic and go no farther as "shallow."
    - jonahx 10y ago
      > Sounds a little like you generally stop at the aesthetic level. No, it doesn't sound like that at all. You've just decided to read it that way and make an ad-hominem argument instead of engaging with the statement itself. > Hmmm. You should be making exactly this sort of decision all the time. The major task of a developer, as I see it after doing this for 36 years, is to pay a lot of attention to context and apply what you've learned by experience wisely. Erring on the side of caution and waiting until there's evidence you need something isn't a bad 1st order heuristic. I would label people who consistently stop at the 1st order heuristic and go no farther as "shallow." I agree with everything you said, and have not said anything that contradicts it. It's a good heuristic. And it's only that. And lots of people apply it poorly.

gerbilly 10y ago

>For the love of god, please use some common sense when repeating mantras like "write less code." To be fair the author said write less _damn_ code. Regular code, however, is fine.[1] [1] Even better if your code is blessed.

brightball 10y ago
Perl fan?
jakobegger 10y ago
Write blessed code?
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  As an alternative, you could use strict.

collyw 10y ago

I took it as a general rule (one which I try to follow myself), but that doesn't make it an excuse for forgetting about security or other concerns.

sherjilozair 10y ago

The proper YAGNI reply to this would be to use a proper library or work in the right abstraction layer so that you don't have to worry about SQL injection. For instance, Django provides the csrf_token which can be dropped in. That's still less code and secure.

stcredzero 10y ago
Right. There's a world of difference between a mature, well maintained database library and some random goofy thing to post to social media written by newb coders. A corollary to writing less code is doing less debugging -- and furthermore, exploiting freely available code that represents 1000's of hours of debugging already done for you. Good taste is just a form of 3rd order laziness.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  > Good taste is just a form of 3rd order laziness. Great line! Saved in my quotes file.
mrec 10y ago
I don't think that's a YAGNI reply, it's a don't-reinvent-the-wheel or anti-NIH reply.
contravariant 10y ago
I think the only proper YAGNI reply would be not to use any kind of user input. Of course, only if you actually don't need it.

msie 10y ago

Depends on what you propose...

mrec 10y ago

OK, but at the same time by automatically dismissing a YAGNI objection as a "thought-terminating cliché" you'll end up with different sorts of ridiculous shit. IME, the YAGNI principle is most useful with new-ish developers who've been taught certain patterns but haven't grasped the motivation for them and so can't judge when the overhead is worth it. In Java-land we'd be talking about the old every-class-must-implement-an-interface-and-come-from-a-factory clichés. It's not that it's a bad pattern, just that until you have multiple implementations and/or a need for DI it probably isn't worth the source bloat. In that situation I think YAGNI is exactly the right objection, and I'm not sure what would take its place if it became widely Considered Harmful.

CarpetBench 10y ago
Sorry, I should've clarified - I'm not opposed to the principle, in moderation of course. You're hitting on places where it is quite useful. It's incredibly mind-numbing when it's being used to justify laziness and short-sightedness. Worse, it's not exactly a misuse of the phrase, as per the original XP article: > Always implement things when you actually need them Security is, as an example, one of those things where you'd face a disaster if you just implemented it when you actually needed it (i.e. when an attack occurred). YAGNI is incredibly short-sighted in situations where rectifying the situation later will be an absolute nightmare (or just impossible). An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and all that.