3 ms·

I don't know why something with many LOC is a problem. Why does OP care about LOC?

capableweb 4y ago
More code, more liability. If you can get away with achieving the same with less code, things tend to be harder to turn into big messy piles of code.
- weatherlight 4y ago
  I'm not a huge fan of rails but, you can generate apps that don't include active record example of all the flags you can pass to rails when initializing a projects. --skip-git Skip git init, .gitignore, and .gitattributes --skip-keeps Skip source control .keep files --skip-action-mailer Skip Action Mailer files --skip-action-mailbox Skip Action Mailbox gem --skip-action-text Skip Action Text gem --skip-active-record Skip Active Record files --skip-active-job Skip Active Job --skip-active-storage Skip Active Storage files --skip-action-cable Skip Action Cable files --skip-asset-pipeline Skip Asset Pipeline --skip-javascript Skip JavaScript files --skip-hotwire Skip Hotwire integration --skip-jbuilder Skip jbuilder gem --skip-test Skip test files --skip-system-test Skip system test files --skip-bootsnap Skip bootsnap gem
  - fknorangesite 4y ago
    Yeah and Rails is modular enough that you can easily pare it down even further - you don't need to `require` everything.
- weego 4y ago
  What does liability mean in the context of a batteries included app framework? If you ever plan on becoming liable for the framework code you're doing something very wrong.
- quest88 4y ago
  Oh huh. I hadn't considered liability implications of using a framework. Thanks for the viewpoint.
- trilobyte 4y ago
  This is a real inexperienced take about a codebase with a huge number of contributors and users, with a lot of test coverage, that has a history of addressing P0/P1 issues quickly. Do you have the same concerns about your compilers? Your web servers? "More code, more liability" is a very sloganeering/cargo-cult take.
  - revscat 4y ago
    It’s true, though. Code costs money. I looked into this years ago for a former employer and at the time it was broadly estimated that for each line of code that a company owns it costs at least $30 every time a developer has to look at a given LOC. This is true whether the dev is writing it, fixing a bug in it, or just looking at it to investigate something related. And that’s for every developer on the company. So if you have code that, for whatever reason, is constantly being looked at by developers, that cost rapidly jumps, even though no one is actually touching it. I’m currently down with the Flu B, so don’t feel like looking up citations, and for that I apologize. My recollection is that this was, unsurprisingly, a fluid estimated, with lots of caveats attached to it. Regardless, it struck me as true, and something I’ve never failed to take into consideration when writing my own code.

More code, more liability. If you can get away with achieving the same with less code, things tend to be harder to turn into big messy piles of code.

weatherlight 4y ago
I'm not a huge fan of rails but, you can generate apps that don't include active record example of all the flags you can pass to rails when initializing a projects. --skip-git Skip git init, .gitignore, and .gitattributes --skip-keeps Skip source control .keep files --skip-action-mailer Skip Action Mailer files --skip-action-mailbox Skip Action Mailbox gem --skip-action-text Skip Action Text gem --skip-active-record Skip Active Record files --skip-active-job Skip Active Job --skip-active-storage Skip Active Storage files --skip-action-cable Skip Action Cable files --skip-asset-pipeline Skip Asset Pipeline --skip-javascript Skip JavaScript files --skip-hotwire Skip Hotwire integration --skip-jbuilder Skip jbuilder gem --skip-test Skip test files --skip-system-test Skip system test files --skip-bootsnap Skip bootsnap gem
- fknorangesite 4y ago
  Yeah and Rails is modular enough that you can easily pare it down even further - you don't need to `require` everything.
weego 4y ago
What does liability mean in the context of a batteries included app framework? If you ever plan on becoming liable for the framework code you're doing something very wrong.
quest88 4y ago
Oh huh. I hadn't considered liability implications of using a framework. Thanks for the viewpoint.
trilobyte 4y ago
This is a real inexperienced take about a codebase with a huge number of contributors and users, with a lot of test coverage, that has a history of addressing P0/P1 issues quickly. Do you have the same concerns about your compilers? Your web servers? "More code, more liability" is a very sloganeering/cargo-cult take.
- revscat 4y ago
  It’s true, though. Code costs money. I looked into this years ago for a former employer and at the time it was broadly estimated that for each line of code that a company owns it costs at least $30 every time a developer has to look at a given LOC. This is true whether the dev is writing it, fixing a bug in it, or just looking at it to investigate something related. And that’s for every developer on the company. So if you have code that, for whatever reason, is constantly being looked at by developers, that cost rapidly jumps, even though no one is actually touching it. I’m currently down with the Flu B, so don’t feel like looking up citations, and for that I apologize. My recollection is that this was, unsurprisingly, a fluid estimated, with lots of caveats attached to it. Regardless, it struck me as true, and something I’ve never failed to take into consideration when writing my own code.