4 ms·

I suppose you are also going to tell us that after you’ve fitted all of those perfect functions together into that perfect program, the requirements have never

I suppose you are also going to tell us that after you’ve fitted all of those perfect functions together into that perfect program, the requirements have never changed. And I suppose when those requirements never changed you never had to rewrite lots of these perfect functions or resort to “append only” programming in order to make sure regression was impossible instead of making large changes in place. Forgive me, but it’s clear you have never worked on a program of any consequence, so it’s hard to read your comment and do anything but wish you the best while also completely ignoring its content.

hombre_fatal 6y ago
In these discussions I basically see people try to fool other experienced craftspeople about the reality and core axioms of the craft. The idea of ascending as a developer to a point where you don't need guardrails and never have to refactor code is just not going to convinced experienced developers. It's clear bullshit. It's like trying to convince experienced motorcyclists that you don't need a helmet because you're quite the driver. It's just defensive driving, people! That the helmet is some sort of crutch you've transcended, and maybe if everyone had a bit more skill -- like yourself -- they'd understand. Yet it always seems to be half of the dynamically- vs statically-typed language debate.