4 ms·
> I try to minimize it as much as possible, even when it hurts productivity. Long term maintainability is more important to me. I don't think this needs to be
by digitallogic 6y ago
> I try to minimize it as much as possible, even when it hurts productivity. Long term maintainability is more important to me.
I don't think this needs to be an either/or choice in these situations. You can have both if you make the make the conscious decision to not fight your tools. Yes, sometimes you have to be more verbose in one language than another, but the productivity hit in that case always pales in comparison to the hours, days, and in some cases I've seen, weeks, lost by someone fighting their language/tools.
My favorite example of this was a developer given a 2 week feature implementation that ballooned to two months. They had minimal experience C++, and they didn't like its looping syntax. Rather than accept that frustration and write the code in a syntax they disliked, they instead spent weeks writing a "re-usable library that abstracts away looping semantics".
- ghj 6y agoNot a good example because being discontent with c++ for loops is how we got https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/ranges https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/ranges (which imo is a good addition to the standard library) But yea, not while you're trying to ship.