3 ms·
What a giant pile of “no true Scotsman” The purpose of clean code and the results of practicing it, it turns out, are vastly different. The reason for that is
by wredue 3y ago
What a giant pile of “no true Scotsman”
The purpose of clean code and the results of practicing it, it turns out, are vastly different. The reason for that is because people are generally incapable of predicting any future state of their code even if they have the requirements in front of them.
Clean code necessitates that dreadful question of “what if”, which is a horrific Pandora’s box of never getting your shit out the door.
It is nearly always better to code for what you know, and to have a person experienced in the domain to otherwise guide the architecture.
- gspencley 3y agoI never made the argument of "no true developer." I pointed to specific reasons cited when push-back is given, and then explained why I disagree with those points. > Clean code necessitates that dreadful question of “what if”, Nope. Not even a little. "Clean code" can be as simple as keeping your moving parts isolated and loosely coupled so that they are easier to debug, to reason about and to reuse in new contexts if needed. What you're talking about, the "what if" game ... is what Martin Fowler termed "Speculative Generality" in his book "Refactoring" when cataloguing code smells and sources of complexity. In other words, the exact opposite of what I'm talking about.
- wredue 3y agoSorry, but your entire post is a “no true Scotsman”. >if the code is not maintainable, then it’s not real clean code” If this isn’t a word for word prime example of “no true Scotsman”, I don’t know what is.