5 ms·

I agree. It's also nice to know when you see a `handle` function, it is getting slotted into an `on` somewhere. Within the handle I prefer to call functions suc

by city41 6y ago

I agree. It's also nice to know when you see a `handle` function, it is getting slotted into an `on` somewhere. Within the handle I prefer to call functions such as updateDate(). But this whole thread brings up something about coding that has always irked me, it's very opinion based. When two people strongly hold the opposite opinions on the same team, it can be a massive hassle for absolutely zero benefit.

hinkley 6y ago
It also quickly explains to you that no, you can’t refactor this method to change the arguments.
DrSiemer 6y ago
In training interns I had to figure out what part of my coding advice to them is best practice and what part is just the way I like to do things. It's good to know the difference and it gave them the space to challenge me on some of those methods, which in turn helped me write better code.
nitrogen 6y ago
When two people strongly hold the opposite opinions on the same team, it can be a massive hassle for absolutely zero benefit. On teams, or in life in general, IMO when there is no consensus, or even an anti-consensus, the only rational global decision is not to make a global decision.
- kuang_eleven 6y ago
  I cannot disagree strongly enough, this is how you end up working on teams that are just disconnected, hostile fiefdoms. Solving an issue that is intractable via discussion is when you escalate. Probably to a tech lead, or even to a manager.
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    Maybe we're talking about different kinds of issues. In the context of opinion-based disagreements (rather than matters of fact or evidence), an anti-consensus seems to indicate that there isn't (and can't be) one right answer. If one group imposes its will on another group, or appeals to the powers that be to do so on their behalf, the second group will definitely become hostile to the first. Thus, anything other than "agreeing to disagree" and moving on to areas where you do agree would just build more resentful, disconnected hostility.

by city41 6y ago

hinkley 6y ago

It also quickly explains to you that no, you can’t refactor this method to change the arguments.

DrSiemer 6y ago

In training interns I had to figure out what part of my coding advice to them is best practice and what part is just the way I like to do things. It's good to know the difference and it gave them the space to challenge me on some of those methods, which in turn helped me write better code.

nitrogen 6y ago

When two people strongly hold the opposite opinions on the same team, it can be a massive hassle for absolutely zero benefit. On teams, or in life in general, IMO when there is no consensus, or even an anti-consensus, the only rational global decision is not to make a global decision.

kuang_eleven 6y ago
I cannot disagree strongly enough, this is how you end up working on teams that are just disconnected, hostile fiefdoms. Solving an issue that is intractable via discussion is when you escalate. Probably to a tech lead, or even to a manager.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  Maybe we're talking about different kinds of issues. In the context of opinion-based disagreements (rather than matters of fact or evidence), an anti-consensus seems to indicate that there isn't (and can't be) one right answer. If one group imposes its will on another group, or appeals to the powers that be to do so on their behalf, the second group will definitely become hostile to the first. Thus, anything other than "agreeing to disagree" and moving on to areas where you do agree would just build more resentful, disconnected hostility.