4 ms·
Yeah, this really reminds me of Sandi Metz's "Duplication is less expensive than the wrong abstraction." I know we aren't talking duplication specifically here
by sodapopcan 10y ago
Yeah, this really reminds me of Sandi Metz's "Duplication is less expensive than the wrong abstraction." I know we aren't talking duplication specifically here, but I've eagerly built the wrong abstraction several times and it suuuuucks.
These days I'm all for the "dirty integration" first.
- AstralStorm 10y agoIf you have proper functional tests, you can replace wrong abstractions at a cost. The real issue is code abstracted bottom-up instead of proper design. Such abstractions end up being special cases and become annoying and worthless if requirements (incl. internal ones) change. While sometimes you can design yourself into a bad end (typically by not taking a really critical requirement into consideration), this is not what often happens.
- sodapopcan 10y ago> The real issue is code abstracted bottom-up instead of proper design. Exactly. We're (basically) saying the same thing here. I kept my comment short-and-sweet as not to get into the nitty-gritty of everyone's different work situations/requirements/stances on different testing practices/building an app vs a library or service/programming paradigm/etc. To expand ever so slightly: "These days I'm all about 'dirty integration' first to help inform my ultimate design."