4 ms·

Wow - I love programming in YAML! You know what would make this really fun? Sprinkle in some Jinja. Then we'll be cooking with gas.

photios 5mo ago
Dreaming about ` | nindent 12` in my specs! :D
grunder_advice 5mo ago
Exactly. At some point, the specification becomes so complex, it's easier to just write the code yourself. It's why famously, programmers always say, the code is the documentation, because writing detailed docs is very tedious and nobody wants to do it.
- bonesss 5mo ago
  There are middle-ways. Behaviour Driven Development or Spec Driven Development are, loosely, forms of Test Driven Development where you encode the specification into the code base. No impedance, full insight, formality through code. I think people get really dogmatic about “test” projects, but with a touch of effort a unit test harness can be split up into integration tests, acceptance tests, and specification compliance tests. Pull the data out as human readable reports and you have a living, verifiable, specification. Particularly using something comparable to back-ticks in F#, which let test names be defined with spaces and punctuation (ie “fulfills requirement 5.A.1, timeouts fail gracefully on mobile”), you can create specific layers of compiled, versioned, and verifiable specification baked into the codebase and available for PMs and testers and clients and approval committees.
hansmayer 5mo ago
:) Here is a crazy thought - what if we had some kind of a narrowed down, specific subset of normal language which would translate into specific computer-level instructions. So for example, instead of telling computer to read something from a file and transform it in a certain way, you actually had a specific instruction to open a file, which worked the same each time you used it and guaranteed to fail if you used it the wrong way? Wow, the possibilities are endless :)
- wiseowise 5mo ago
  Don’t be ridiculous, that would be extremely hard. Oppressive even, because it’s unattainable to an average person. And it is, otherwise there would be millions of programmers in the world. Was it unattainable or “we have to pay these suckers money, and they have rights and lives outside of work”? Bah! Just make sure to renew your subscription, agent will do the thinking and you bring the money.
  - hansmayer 5mo ago
    But Paul Graham says that the guy from Replit whom he funded told him the source code is "object code" now, so we don't need to look at it all ? It must be utter wisdom since PG managed to get wealthy by selling some website during dotcom-mania so he must have insights we are missing?
    - wiseowise 5mo ago
      Heathen. And you dare to say this on a website created by the guy?
    - oblio 5mo ago
      > PG managed to get wealthy by selling some website during dotcom-mania I don't remember how much he made selling the "quickly-killed startup bought by now failed internet giant". But I'm fairly sure how much money he made building something other people used is peanuts compared to what he made investing early in companies where others built things, instead of him.
- woolion 5mo ago
  [flagged]
bronxpockfabz 5mo ago
We might as well future proof this by writing specs in YAML-ified Ruby, this way it's more flexible, I've been told it's best practice!
dgellow 5mo ago
Crying in k8s templating
karmakaze 5mo ago
I started reading to find out why Yaml? In it's place I found a great post. One thing though, I loved the "AUTH-1" numbering and the Yaml breaks that into an Auth section, with "1." subsection which I don't like nearly as much, the codification AUTH-1 is more referenceable/searchable.
- brendanmc6 5mo ago
  Ah, I should have said explicitly or provided an example of in the post; The tooling expects that you refer to each requirement by full ID e.g. # admin.AUTH.1
jitler 5mo ago
Everything is screaming at me to leave this industry because apparently all paths to lead to becoming a yaml monkey. I’d rather rot.
user3939382 5mo ago
I just started learning GitLab CI scripts and this was my first exposure to the concept of having executable code inside yaml files. I was like what kind of hell is this?

photios 5mo ago

Dreaming about ` | nindent 12` in my specs! :D

grunder_advice 5mo ago

Exactly. At some point, the specification becomes so complex, it's easier to just write the code yourself. It's why famously, programmers always say, the code is the documentation, because writing detailed docs is very tedious and nobody wants to do it.

bonesss 5mo ago
There are middle-ways. Behaviour Driven Development or Spec Driven Development are, loosely, forms of Test Driven Development where you encode the specification into the code base. No impedance, full insight, formality through code. I think people get really dogmatic about “test” projects, but with a touch of effort a unit test harness can be split up into integration tests, acceptance tests, and specification compliance tests. Pull the data out as human readable reports and you have a living, verifiable, specification. Particularly using something comparable to back-ticks in F#, which let test names be defined with spaces and punctuation (ie “fulfills requirement 5.A.1, timeouts fail gracefully on mobile”), you can create specific layers of compiled, versioned, and verifiable specification baked into the codebase and available for PMs and testers and clients and approval committees.

hansmayer 5mo ago

:) Here is a crazy thought - what if we had some kind of a narrowed down, specific subset of normal language which would translate into specific computer-level instructions. So for example, instead of telling computer to read something from a file and transform it in a certain way, you actually had a specific instruction to open a file, which worked the same each time you used it and guaranteed to fail if you used it the wrong way? Wow, the possibilities are endless :)

wiseowise 5mo ago
Don’t be ridiculous, that would be extremely hard. Oppressive even, because it’s unattainable to an average person. And it is, otherwise there would be millions of programmers in the world. Was it unattainable or “we have to pay these suckers money, and they have rights and lives outside of work”? Bah! Just make sure to renew your subscription, agent will do the thinking and you bring the money.
- hansmayer 5mo ago
  But Paul Graham says that the guy from Replit whom he funded told him the source code is "object code" now, so we don't need to look at it all ? It must be utter wisdom since PG managed to get wealthy by selling some website during dotcom-mania so he must have insights we are missing?
  - wiseowise 5mo ago
    Heathen. And you dare to say this on a website created by the guy?
  - oblio 5mo ago
    > PG managed to get wealthy by selling some website during dotcom-mania I don't remember how much he made selling the "quickly-killed startup bought by now failed internet giant". But I'm fairly sure how much money he made building something other people used is peanuts compared to what he made investing early in companies where others built things, instead of him.
woolion 5mo ago
[flagged]

bronxpockfabz 5mo ago

We might as well future proof this by writing specs in YAML-ified Ruby, this way it's more flexible, I've been told it's best practice!

dgellow 5mo ago

Crying in k8s templating

karmakaze 5mo ago

I started reading to find out why Yaml? In it's place I found a great post. One thing though, I loved the "AUTH-1" numbering and the Yaml breaks that into an Auth section, with "1." subsection which I don't like nearly as much, the codification AUTH-1 is more referenceable/searchable.

brendanmc6 5mo ago
Ah, I should have said explicitly or provided an example of in the post; The tooling expects that you refer to each requirement by full ID e.g. # admin.AUTH.1

jitler 5mo ago

Everything is screaming at me to leave this industry because apparently all paths to lead to becoming a yaml monkey. I’d rather rot.

user3939382 5mo ago

I just started learning GitLab CI scripts and this was my first exposure to the concept of having executable code inside yaml files. I was like what kind of hell is this?