3 ms·

> The point is, please understand what I mean, If misunderstanding is possible then clearly it's not simple to understand what people mean everytime. Maybe if

> The point is, please understand what I mean, If misunderstanding is possible then clearly it's not simple to understand what people mean everytime. Maybe if you explained more clearly I'd understand why you feel your opinion is factual and feel what I say is just opinion.

Dylan16807 4y ago
> You have different ideas of what makes code good. Different preferences. > my argument is not based on my preferences[...] It doesn't actually matter if I think the tests are bad or not. The thing I am calling your opinion is not your evaluation of minitest. I'm saying your evaluation of the test code is an opinion. My evaluation of the test code is also an opinion. Neither of our opinions about the test code matter here. That was what I was arguing in this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34831045 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34831045 I don't think your attempt to turn things around into criticism of minitest is an opinion. I think it's snark that doesn't work when examined more closely.
- tomlockwood 4y ago
  This hn article is literally a link to minitest code.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    Because it's unprofessional. Or to argue about whether the tests truly do suck. Not because you can flip the standard around and say it sucks for those same reasons it accuses some tests of sucking. The stuff you said up here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34829343 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34829343 is just wrong.
    - tomlockwood 4y ago
      You're arguing that me saying minitest authors should put "i_suck" in their library name is unprofessional, on this post? It "sucks" because it has an inaccurate method name that implies an inferiority. This is my current and original criticism of the minitest devs. Your idea that I am unprofessional, is an opinion. "This method name indicates a lack of understanding that finding the right balance of speed, cost and quality is a compromise."
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        > You're arguing that me saying minitest authors should put "i_suck" in their library name is unprofessional, on this post? No I am not.
        tomlockwood 4y ago
        I feel like you need to express your point better!
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        The minitest author(s) were unprofessional. That unprofessional humor is the main reason it was posted. But that's different from writing code that sucks. A single flag name like that doesn't even affect functionality or readability.
        tomlockwood 4y ago
        It actually does, it's generally agreed that longer method names are worse unless the length is descriptive. This isn't a super contraversial idea.

Dylan16807 4y ago

> You have different ideas of what makes code good. Different preferences. > my argument is not based on my preferences[...] It doesn't actually matter if I think the tests are bad or not. The thing I am calling your opinion is not your evaluation of minitest. I'm saying your evaluation of the test code is an opinion. My evaluation of the test code is also an opinion. Neither of our opinions about the test code matter here. That was what I was arguing in this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34831045 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34831045 I don't think your attempt to turn things around into criticism of minitest is an opinion. I think it's snark that doesn't work when examined more closely.

tomlockwood 4y ago
This hn article is literally a link to minitest code.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  Because it's unprofessional. Or to argue about whether the tests truly do suck. Not because you can flip the standard around and say it sucks for those same reasons it accuses some tests of sucking. The stuff you said up here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34829343 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34829343 is just wrong.
  - tomlockwood 4y ago
    You're arguing that me saying minitest authors should put "i_suck" in their library name is unprofessional, on this post? It "sucks" because it has an inaccurate method name that implies an inferiority. This is my current and original criticism of the minitest devs. Your idea that I am unprofessional, is an opinion. "This method name indicates a lack of understanding that finding the right balance of speed, cost and quality is a compromise."
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      > You're arguing that me saying minitest authors should put "i_suck" in their library name is unprofessional, on this post? No I am not.
      - tomlockwood 4y ago
        I feel like you need to express your point better!
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        The minitest author(s) were unprofessional. That unprofessional humor is the main reason it was posted. But that's different from writing code that sucks. A single flag name like that doesn't even affect functionality or readability.
        tomlockwood 4y ago
        It actually does, it's generally agreed that longer method names are worse unless the length is descriptive. This isn't a super contraversial idea.