2 ms·
You'd think so, but abstraction names are like comments: they are seldom updated when the implementation grows more hairs. In older code, or code worked on by
by barrkel 7y ago
You'd think so, but abstraction names are like comments: they are seldom updated when the implementation grows more hairs.
In older code, or code worked on by a larger team, I always chase into functions to understand the code, and don't rely on names. I'm also less inclined to indirect code unless the abstraction has genuine meaning, rather than being a compression technique for repetition, no matter how well named.
- cottsak 7y agoThen the problem here seems like the lack of drive towards intention-revealing naming. It's burdensome, but worth it when the intention is revealed and prevents the navigation to the implementation. But like the author said, the reuse fallacy prevents this from having a good RoI until there is a significant usage of said abstraction.