3 ms·

> Is it controversial to state that defensive programming boils down to "more validation is better"? It is a straw man to take this as being intended to justif

> Is it controversial to state that defensive programming boils down to "more validation is better"? It is a straw man to take this as being intended to justify incorrect and useless validation. If this is something to be decided by personal anecdote, I will just add mine: I haven't seen this, while I have seen many cases where validation has picked up subtle and edge-case errors.

marginalia_nu 5y ago
It's probably fallen out of favor, but I saw it a lot around the same time the OP was written, late-2000s, early 2010s. Look, this is the paragraph we are discussing: > Be Defensive - They're out to Get Your Code! - Defensively assert about the state of parameters passed in methods, constructors, and mid-method. If someone can pass in a null, you've left your guard down. You see, there are testing freaks out there that like to instantiate your object, or call a method under test and pass in nulls! Be aggressive in preventing this: rule your code with an iron fist! (And remember: it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.) In which way am I misrepresenting it?
- mannykannot 5y ago
  That's just the same straw man that you are also arguing against! As for your anecdotal evidence, it does not count twice through repetition.
  - marginalia_nu 5y ago
    Why wouldn't anecdotal evidence count? This may not be the flavor of defensive programming you favor, but it is something that exists, and also something that is explicitly mentioned in the start of the discussion.
    - mannykannot 5y ago
      It counts for something, but yours does not count more than anyone else's - and it is certainly not sufficient to make a general case against validation. Pointing out that bad or incorrect validation is bad is news to no-one, and is merely a specific case of bad code being harmful. >...something that is explicitly mentioned in the start of the discussion. Yes - it started with a straw man in the article.
      - marginalia_nu 5y ago
        Have a nice day.

marginalia_nu 5y ago

It's probably fallen out of favor, but I saw it a lot around the same time the OP was written, late-2000s, early 2010s. Look, this is the paragraph we are discussing: > Be Defensive - They're out to Get Your Code! - Defensively assert about the state of parameters passed in methods, constructors, and mid-method. If someone can pass in a null, you've left your guard down. You see, there are testing freaks out there that like to instantiate your object, or call a method under test and pass in nulls! Be aggressive in preventing this: rule your code with an iron fist! (And remember: it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.) In which way am I misrepresenting it?

mannykannot 5y ago
That's just the same straw man that you are also arguing against! As for your anecdotal evidence, it does not count twice through repetition.
- marginalia_nu 5y ago
  Why wouldn't anecdotal evidence count? This may not be the flavor of defensive programming you favor, but it is something that exists, and also something that is explicitly mentioned in the start of the discussion.
  - mannykannot 5y ago
    It counts for something, but yours does not count more than anyone else's - and it is certainly not sufficient to make a general case against validation. Pointing out that bad or incorrect validation is bad is news to no-one, and is merely a specific case of bad code being harmful. >...something that is explicitly mentioned in the start of the discussion. Yes - it started with a straw man in the article.
    - marginalia_nu 5y ago
      Have a nice day.