3 ms·
I agree - however, I don't think the developers we are imagining are imaginary. They exist and are common, but we shouldn't be catering to them as much as we so
by happytoexplain 5y ago
I agree - however, I don't think the developers we are imagining are imaginary. They exist and are common, but we shouldn't be catering to them as much as we sometimes do. Maybe that means leaning away from pragmatism and toward purism, but my hope is that software generally moves that way over time.
Edit: Not "moves that way" as in becomes completely purist, just that I hope it lands a little closer to that side of the spectrum in the future.
- hinkley 5y agoCoding for aesthetics is purism. Coding for human cognition/DevEx is pragmatism. They looks similar to an outsider, but the hills they choose for dying can be fairly different.
- lowbloodsugar 5y agoHorses for courses. We have to admit that it takes a team with more skill to build a nuclear submarine than it does to inflate a dinghy, but conversely, no point paying nuclear engineers for your dinghy company. If you are building dinghies, or indeed mass producing dinghies for small clients, sure, pragmatism is not using complex async code. If you are building a nuclear submarine, the team better have a real good idea of how these parallel systems interact, don't deadlock the cooling system, and pragmatism might be "who knows TLA+?".