5 ms·
I've been going through the comments on previous posts. I think one of the biggest issues with the article is the title. It seems to act as an anchor for a lot
by Sakos 2y ago
I've been going through the comments on previous posts. I think one of the biggest issues with the article is the title. It seems to act as an anchor for a lot of people to the point where they'll argue against things that aren't in the article, just implied by the title (without context). So there'll be people arguing that she doesn't want to validate at all and just wants to parse, when really the article is about where you validate your data (and what you do with the result). It is not about getting rid of all validation.
- blowski 2y agoThis is true of all famous essays. People remove the nuance included in the body and over-apply the title without really understanding it. For example "Goto considered harmful". I remember working with a very good programmer who'd used a "goto", and a much less senior one[1] rejected their PR by linking to the article. [1] I'm ashamed to say it was me, a long time ago.
- ffsm8 2y agoThat's precisely why I love to only comment things with questions, i.e. "isn't go-to considered harmful? Is this really the best way?". It gives the person making the change the opportunity to give context for their decision - and either change or spell out their reasoning for it, potentially giving me an opportunity to learn from them. Another good benefit is that it doesn't "attack" the PR author in the "non-violent communication" way
- blowski 2y agoDoesn't that seem a bit passive aggressive? See what I did there?
- Smaug123 2y agoYou can totally do this with non-passive-aggressive phrasings ("Is this possible using structured programming instead of GOTO? What went wrong when you tried, how messy does it get?")
- ffsm8 2y agoSurely it depends on both your phrasing and how you usually interact with your colleagues, no?