3 ms·
You still have to understand all the new stuff to read other people’s code. And the old way, so you can read older code. And if there are other ways to do somet
by karatestomp 7y ago
You still have to understand all the new stuff to read other people’s code. And the old way, so you can read older code. And if there are other ways to do something that are or have recently been in common use, those too. You end up memorizing a bunch of crap for one actual operation.
- jrochkind1 7y agoYep. I think ruby (which in general I still love) has become a major offender of this. "If you don't like it don't use it" is not a good answer for exactly the reasons you explain.
- sgift 7y agoI sense a goalpost moving here. The point of the blog post to which I answered to was: I have to redo all my programs to follow the "idiomatic" way. Now we are at "other programmers could use new features, so I still have to learn them". And yes, that is true. And that will always be true as long as a language has new releases. Even if all those releases were library changes and not syntax changes/additions. The only way to stop this would be to stop all language development.
- setr 7y agoEven worse would be if someone pulled in a library... That requires much more cognitive load and doc-reading than something like try! -> ? Or the worst of all possible worlds -- pulling in a macro-based framework
- silon42 7y agoBut you don't have to change your code unless it's an improvement to you. Somebody else may do it if they care, and you may accept OR reject the PR with no bad feelings.