3 ms·

The argument in the post is a bit of a strawman - for really simple examples like that indirection makes no sense. Saying "is_something_like" as an alias for "s

The argument in the post is a bit of a strawman - for really simple examples like that indirection makes no sense. Saying "is_something_like" as an alias for "starts_with" is an unnecessary alias that does nothing for the readability or duplication of the code. Indirection really isn't necessary in this case, even if you use "starts_with" in a thousand places. It might make sense if you're trying to do a comparator, like "is_email_equivalent" - in that case the indirection would make sense - you might be doing a just a lower case check today, but in the future you might expand that to take into account Gmail specific equivalence rules. For stuff like "read_json_from_file", indirection makes a lot of sense. No point doing the whole "create_buffer", "read_file_to_buffer", "parse_json" deal every single time.

didericis 7y ago
I’d hesitate to call the good abstractions you describe indirection. The term is most appropriate when describing opaque abstractions that force you into their inner workings in order to understand their purpose. In the original example, what exactly it means to be “foo like” is not obvious. You need to bounce into the other file/method in order to understand it’s purpose. In good abstractions, like the ones you describe, you can read the method and understand it’s intended purpose as is. In fact, a good abstraction will be easier to understand than inlining all it’s details. This is a semantic point, but I don’t think there really is such a thing as good indirection. Indirection is the result of bad abstractions. The author is basically just saying “don’t make bad abstractions”.
- sbov 7y ago
  It doesn't matter how good your abstraction is, if someone needs to know the details it is at that point indirection. And there will always be some cases where someone needs to know the details. The better your abstraction, the less often. But someone, sometime, will still need to look at them.
  - didericis 7y ago
    True, there will always be people who need to know the details. That applies all the way down to CPU opcodes. I’m making more of a semantic point than anything else. If you define indirection as anything which causes you to jump from the code directly in front of you at any point, then yes, you can call even good abstractions indirection. I’d argue that such a definition makes the word “indirection” must less useful, as it becomes pretty much synonymous with “abstraction”. I think it’s better to reserve the word “indirection” to describe abstractions that require you to look elsewhere to understand what the abstraction actually is.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
enedil 7y ago
In Python it's json.load(file), so no indirection needed whatsoever.
- willbw 7y ago
  That is indirection though. json.load basically calls fp.read() and then passes that value to be deserialised. Everything is indirection.
- sudhirj 7y ago
  It doesn't stop being what it is just because the standard library does it.
fenomas 7y ago
I think the idea here is that "foolike" is some kind of meaningful characteristic that happens to be testable by looking at a string prefix - not that the author is just making a helper to test string prefixes. E.g.: function isActiveCustomer(status) { return status.startsWith("active") } is, I presume, the sort of thing the author means to suggest.

didericis 7y ago

I’d hesitate to call the good abstractions you describe indirection. The term is most appropriate when describing opaque abstractions that force you into their inner workings in order to understand their purpose. In the original example, what exactly it means to be “foo like” is not obvious. You need to bounce into the other file/method in order to understand it’s purpose. In good abstractions, like the ones you describe, you can read the method and understand it’s intended purpose as is. In fact, a good abstraction will be easier to understand than inlining all it’s details. This is a semantic point, but I don’t think there really is such a thing as good indirection. Indirection is the result of bad abstractions. The author is basically just saying “don’t make bad abstractions”.

sbov 7y ago
It doesn't matter how good your abstraction is, if someone needs to know the details it is at that point indirection. And there will always be some cases where someone needs to know the details. The better your abstraction, the less often. But someone, sometime, will still need to look at them.
- didericis 7y ago
  True, there will always be people who need to know the details. That applies all the way down to CPU opcodes. I’m making more of a semantic point than anything else. If you define indirection as anything which causes you to jump from the code directly in front of you at any point, then yes, you can call even good abstractions indirection. I’d argue that such a definition makes the word “indirection” must less useful, as it becomes pretty much synonymous with “abstraction”. I think it’s better to reserve the word “indirection” to describe abstractions that require you to look elsewhere to understand what the abstraction actually is.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

enedil 7y ago

In Python it's json.load(file), so no indirection needed whatsoever.

willbw 7y ago
That is indirection though. json.load basically calls fp.read() and then passes that value to be deserialised. Everything is indirection.
sudhirj 7y ago
It doesn't stop being what it is just because the standard library does it.

fenomas 7y ago

I think the idea here is that "foolike" is some kind of meaningful characteristic that happens to be testable by looking at a string prefix - not that the author is just making a helper to test string prefixes. E.g.: function isActiveCustomer(status) { return status.startsWith("active") } is, I presume, the sort of thing the author means to suggest.