3 ms·
> 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 a
by 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 agoYou'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.