4 ms·

Thank you for your feedback. I'm encouraging you to read the whole article, better, whole series. Because sum method was used to quickly explain Specific/Gener

Thank you for your feedback. I'm encouraging you to read the whole article, better, whole series. Because sum method was used to quickly explain Specific/Generic rule on the simplest example. Then it follows through with real-ish (a bit modified) business case, that has gotten me stuck in the past. I know that readers on the internet have limited attention span, so I shouldn't have put a sum method example at the beginning, rather I should have started with the main case study and made a detour before applying this rule to the sum example. Thanks for the feedback again, next time I will try to not make this mistake.

taeric 10y ago
Apologies if it sounded overly critical. I actually did read the whole thing. I like the technique. It is very very appealing. I just have a hard time finding evidence in real projects where it has worked. My complaint is akin to the modern complaints on the gang of 4 patterns. Individually they make compelling arguments and if you follow the discussion, it is appealing. And I don't want to throw out the baby, so to speak. I think all of these make fine guidelines. We are just an industry that seems hellbent on finding prescriptive directions where it is becoming apparent none exist.
- waterlink 10y ago
  To reassure: I do use this technique on a daily basis. And I have teached it to my team and we are happily applying it. It works well on big complex projects and makes sure you didn't miss any test case, so that Semantic Stability of the test suite is up high.
- waterlink 10y ago
  And thanks for the warm words! :)