3 ms·

> YAGNI is more about design than implementation Not as it seems to be usually defined, but I agree that programmers are bad for not sharing a common nomenclat

> YAGNI is more about design than implementation Not as it seems to be usually defined, but I agree that programmers are bad for not sharing a common nomenclature. We can't even agree what something as simple as enums are. So, no doubt that there are camps who hold that perspective. enterprise_cog clearly comes from the "don't implement", not "don't design" definition, though.

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
"you aint gonna need it" can be clarified as "you aint gonna need all those extension points". it can also mean you don't need functionality you're not using, including implementations for those extension points.
- randomdata 3y ago
  While I accept your definition, because, hey, programmer's can't agree on definitions at the best of times, that is not the definition that was used earlier. And is not the definition presented by the XP gang. John Carmack of Doom fame seems to share your definition, suggesting that attempts to plan architecture in advance will only come to bite you, but I'm not sure he is an XP subscriber and he certainly wasn't involved in C3.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    oh yeah, you're right, what the XP guys meant was "spend all your time building the architecture with all kinds of extension points just don't implement them... YAGNI!". It's a mis-interpretation and it's not a reasonable one either.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      Pretty much. Central to the YAGNI message is ensuring that your design brings test coverage to help you build the things you need when you need it. Kent Beck is credited with having invented TDD, so of course that's at the heart of their theorem. You need those extension points to keep your tests sane. They come naturally as part of the testing process.
      - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        https://dhh.dk/2014/test-induced-design-damage.html https://dhh.dk/2014/test-induced-design-damage.html
        randomdata 3y ago
        It's always strange when someone on a discussion forum defers to someone else for their thoughts. Why even bother? It's even stranger when the deferral isn't even relevant. Stranger still, the premise appears to be made up. I can find no mention of "Code that's hard to test in isolation is poorly designed" anywhere on the internet other than that blog post and another blog that cites DHH. Beck's insight with TDD, over the testing that came before it, was really just that if you write the test first then you have certainty that the test fails. If you are writing tests for code that you have already written, there is no way to know if your test passes because your code is conformant or because there is a bug in your test. But, whether your write your tests first or last, you do need extension points to keep your tests sane. Rails is no exception. In fact, I would argue Rails' success was directly related to it leaning into testing and it showing developers what extension points are most relevant for web applications as a result. Before Rails came along, throwing MySQL calls haphazardly into the middle of the HTML was the norm.
        PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        this is all just a defensive mechanism to try and dismiss the point. What's going to happen is that over time you'll eventually have the experience to understand what's being described here. Because it turns out there's a lot of things that young people find weird that they later understand.
        randomdata 3y ago
        > this is all just a defensive mechanism to try and dismiss the point. I figured. > What's going to happen is that over time you'll eventually have the experience to understand what's being described here. I've been around long enough to be aware of the surface level motivation – accepting the point without defensive dismissal would cause harm to your ego. I just don't get the appeal. Who cares about the ego? If you have no thoughts to share, why post anything? Surely if DHH wants to share his thoughts here, he can come here himself? > Because it turns out there's a lot of things that young people find weird that they later understand. Curiously, older people almost universally state that getting older means caring about the ego less and less. Maybe what you are trying to say here is that you are still too young to understand that? Fair enough.

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago

"you aint gonna need it" can be clarified as "you aint gonna need all those extension points". it can also mean you don't need functionality you're not using, including implementations for those extension points.

randomdata 3y ago
While I accept your definition, because, hey, programmer's can't agree on definitions at the best of times, that is not the definition that was used earlier. And is not the definition presented by the XP gang. John Carmack of Doom fame seems to share your definition, suggesting that attempts to plan architecture in advance will only come to bite you, but I'm not sure he is an XP subscriber and he certainly wasn't involved in C3.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  oh yeah, you're right, what the XP guys meant was "spend all your time building the architecture with all kinds of extension points just don't implement them... YAGNI!". It's a mis-interpretation and it's not a reasonable one either.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    Pretty much. Central to the YAGNI message is ensuring that your design brings test coverage to help you build the things you need when you need it. Kent Beck is credited with having invented TDD, so of course that's at the heart of their theorem. You need those extension points to keep your tests sane. They come naturally as part of the testing process.
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      https://dhh.dk/2014/test-induced-design-damage.html https://dhh.dk/2014/test-induced-design-damage.html
      - randomdata 3y ago
        It's always strange when someone on a discussion forum defers to someone else for their thoughts. Why even bother? It's even stranger when the deferral isn't even relevant. Stranger still, the premise appears to be made up. I can find no mention of "Code that's hard to test in isolation is poorly designed" anywhere on the internet other than that blog post and another blog that cites DHH. Beck's insight with TDD, over the testing that came before it, was really just that if you write the test first then you have certainty that the test fails. If you are writing tests for code that you have already written, there is no way to know if your test passes because your code is conformant or because there is a bug in your test. But, whether your write your tests first or last, you do need extension points to keep your tests sane. Rails is no exception. In fact, I would argue Rails' success was directly related to it leaning into testing and it showing developers what extension points are most relevant for web applications as a result. Before Rails came along, throwing MySQL calls haphazardly into the middle of the HTML was the norm.
        PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        this is all just a defensive mechanism to try and dismiss the point. What's going to happen is that over time you'll eventually have the experience to understand what's being described here. Because it turns out there's a lot of things that young people find weird that they later understand.
        randomdata 3y ago
        > this is all just a defensive mechanism to try and dismiss the point. I figured. > What's going to happen is that over time you'll eventually have the experience to understand what's being described here. I've been around long enough to be aware of the surface level motivation – accepting the point without defensive dismissal would cause harm to your ego. I just don't get the appeal. Who cares about the ego? If you have no thoughts to share, why post anything? Surely if DHH wants to share his thoughts here, he can come here himself? > Because it turns out there's a lot of things that young people find weird that they later understand. Curiously, older people almost universally state that getting older means caring about the ego less and less. Maybe what you are trying to say here is that you are still too young to understand that? Fair enough.