4 ms·
> achieved enlightenment I haven't. What are you saying?
by tempguy9999 7y ago
> achieved enlightenment
I haven't. What are you saying?
- darkwater 7y agoMaybe that, no matter what you do, there will be always somebody telling you there's a better implementation for it.
- gibagger 7y agoI believe that it means that some things aren't always very clear cut, and one could make a reasonable argument to do it either way.
- tempguy9999 7y agoThe best I could interpret it is to have it both ways; break it down into small private functions, then nest (edit: encapsulate) these in a larger one where they can't be seen by anyone else.
- blowski 7y agoBoth and neither. It depends on you and your team, the project requirements, the rest of the codebase, and so many other things. The choice you make is less important than _why_ you make it.
- tempguy9999 7y agoMaybe the western approach of actually giving useful information beats the zen approach of confusing the fuck out of people.
- blowski 7y agoYou’re going to hate reading this: https://www.mit.edu/~xela/tao.html https://www.mit.edu/~xela/tao.html
- Jarwain 7y agoOne should group functionality into a single function, not because it's "easier to write", but instead because "it belongs together"
- ufo 7y ago"And at that moment the novice achieved enlightenment" is the usual punchline for this story setup. The message is that neither of the alternatives is correct all the time.
- nabeards 7y agoI always took it to mean, "Don't put all the code into one function because it's easy, do it because it's logical."