3 ms·

I'm an obsessive idealist and I blame OO programming for my unfathomable (to most people) lack of productivity. With OO I always see, for instance, that code or

I'm an obsessive idealist and I blame OO programming for my unfathomable (to most people) lack of productivity. With OO I always see, for instance, that code organization B is better than code organization A for very good reason. And C is better than B. But then A is better than C, also for good reason. After that nothing gets done. I feel like I got more done writing assembly when I was 13 than I do today.

jpfed 5y ago
Every time you switch, remember what that implies about your weighting of what's important. If you force yourself to develop a consistent weighting of criteria- or even just to let your weighting of criteria change in a consistent direction- then you won't cycle back to previously-discarded solutions. So when you say that B is better than A, get specific. "If I choose B over A, I'm saying that testability and straightforward implementation are more important in the context of this project than concision. Is that true?" If it's not, keep A. If it is, remember your choice! Then when C tempts you, you can ask yourself- is switching to C consistent with the weighting of criteria that caused you to switch from A to B? Perfect software doesn't exist. But you can try to best match your implementation to the particular concerns of the context it's written in.