3 ms·
Since no one has stated it, this looks like a rip-off of https://blog.codinghorror.com/rule-of-three/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/rule-of-three/ (which comes
by franciscop 9y ago
Since no one has stated it, this looks like a rip-off of https://blog.codinghorror.com/rule-of-three/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/rule-of-three/ (which comes from https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0321117425 https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0321117425 ).
Of course there are many other places such as the mentioned C2: http://wiki.c2.com/?RuleOfThree http://wiki.c2.com/?RuleOfThree , my point is just that the Erik authoritatively says he is postulating it, but it's already all around the internet.
- brlewis 9y agoThe article now mentions this at the bottom. I think if he were intentionally trying to rip it off he wouldn't have called it "rule of three" because that makes it too obvious. I think he just forgot having seen it. It's kind of fortunate that it worked out this way; I like seeing people comment on a well-established idea as if it's newly postulated.
- franciscop 9y agoYes, I misused rip-off and now after a quick search I found that it has a much more negative meaning than I intended.
- svat 9y agoPerhaps instead of "rip-off of" you meant "riff off of". :-)
- erikbern 9y agoAuthor here. It's slightly embarrassing that this turns out to be an old idea – it wasn't my intent to rip it off. I'm fairly sure I must have seen it a long time ago and then forgot about its origin. In retrospect I probably should have googled it.
- franciscop 9y agoI was just thinking about this last week because of that old CodingHorror post so I was quite surprised to see it here as a new idea. I was actually just expecting a link or two at the bottom of the article. Also, I have misused rip-off here; I didn't mean to say you defrauded/cheated/stole anything, just that it's an old idea already going around. I apologize for incorrectly using this verb and accusing you of ripping off this idea.