4 ms·

didn't read all that stuff, busy getting stuff done. I agree with this. When I end up on a new project and I'm not the lead, and there is a lead who is pedanti

by ern 9y ago

didn't read all that stuff, busy getting stuff done. I agree with this. When I end up on a new project and I'm not the lead, and there is a lead who is pedantic regarding how they want their URLs crafted (or wants to implement a complicated query pattern, or introduce an extra layer of objects to satisfy an abstract notion of purity), I'll just go with the flow. Accidental complexity, pattern seeking and cargo-culting are personality traits of many programmers, and I've come to the conclusion that its best to accept this, and get on with the job of actually delivering value.

w0utert 9y ago
Couldn’t agree more. I guess this is one of these insights that come with experience ;-)
Yokohiii 9y ago
Interesting viewpoint. But I am concerned that my mental capabilities can contain every brainfart that a misguided but smart person has.
nine_k 9y ago
The problem becomes evident when you return to the results so the flow a year later to change something, and wish you were more mindful when getting things done. Cargo cults are not good. Finding and adhering to regular patters that logically underlie what you do saves time and mental effort, while also preventing certain classes of errors. (No, these are not GoF design patterns.)
- ern 9y ago
  I’m certainly not advocating spaghetti code, balls of mud, or a thoughtless lack of architecture. What I’m specifically referring to is wilful anti-pragmatism that betrays a sort of insecurity...it’s hard to define but easier to recognize. Finding the balance between pointless over-engineering and rigidity on one hand, and good software design on the other, consistently, is what seems to distinguish great programmers I’ve worked with, from those who are “just” very good. But, like I said, it often isn’t worth the trouble fighting about these things, even when we see them, and getting on with the job is more important than ensnaring oneself in religious debates on projects.
seanp2k2 9y ago
You might like http://jsonapi.org http://jsonapi.org which defines a standard that is fairly sane.

by ern 9y ago

w0utert 9y ago

Couldn’t agree more. I guess this is one of these insights that come with experience ;-)

Yokohiii 9y ago

Interesting viewpoint. But I am concerned that my mental capabilities can contain every brainfart that a misguided but smart person has.

nine_k 9y ago

The problem becomes evident when you return to the results so the flow a year later to change something, and wish you were more mindful when getting things done. Cargo cults are not good. Finding and adhering to regular patters that logically underlie what you do saves time and mental effort, while also preventing certain classes of errors. (No, these are not GoF design patterns.)

ern 9y ago
I’m certainly not advocating spaghetti code, balls of mud, or a thoughtless lack of architecture. What I’m specifically referring to is wilful anti-pragmatism that betrays a sort of insecurity...it’s hard to define but easier to recognize. Finding the balance between pointless over-engineering and rigidity on one hand, and good software design on the other, consistently, is what seems to distinguish great programmers I’ve worked with, from those who are “just” very good. But, like I said, it often isn’t worth the trouble fighting about these things, even when we see them, and getting on with the job is more important than ensnaring oneself in religious debates on projects.

seanp2k2 9y ago

You might like http://jsonapi.org http://jsonapi.org which defines a standard that is fairly sane.