4 ms·

> 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 origina

by 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.
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    You've just decided to read it that way and make an ad-hominem argument instead of engaging with the statement itself. Well, no. You've said a lot of things in this thread that seem to indicate that a 1st order heuristic only has value if it can be used in place of cognition. If there are more than 2 possible answers, a 1st order heuristic that was correct 40% of the time could still have value. And lots of people apply it poorly. Applying it properly is taking it as, "We need more evidence to justify the cost/benefit." That's conceptually more precise, though it manages to sound even more awkward than YAGNI. But from what you've been saying, it seems like "YAGNI" is simply the end of discussion.

by jonahx 10y ago

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.
- stcredzero 10y ago
  You've just decided to read it that way and make an ad-hominem argument instead of engaging with the statement itself. Well, no. You've said a lot of things in this thread that seem to indicate that a 1st order heuristic only has value if it can be used in place of cognition. If there are more than 2 possible answers, a 1st order heuristic that was correct 40% of the time could still have value. And lots of people apply it poorly. Applying it properly is taking it as, "We need more evidence to justify the cost/benefit." That's conceptually more precise, though it manages to sound even more awkward than YAGNI. But from what you've been saying, it seems like "YAGNI" is simply the end of discussion.