4 ms·
I think you missed the point. It isn't to show how stupid it is to change things that already work. It is to show how often the motivation for trivial changes i
by dsego 13y ago
I think you missed the point. It isn't to show how stupid it is to change things that already work. It is to show how often the motivation for trivial changes is just to make your code appear sophisticated and stand out.
- gambler 13y agoThe point isn't very clear from the article. Frankly, I've never seen anyone changing working code simply for the sake of showing off their sophistication, so it feels like a straw-man argument. What does happen quite often is what I described above: people changing code to make it more comprehensible for themselves. If that happens a lot to your code, the answer isn't felling butt-hurt (which seems to be the case with the author) and blaming it on "dysfunctional" personalities of other coders. The answer is to write comments, do better job naming stuff, be clearer about things in general.
- dsego 13y agoThe point is very clear. For example, changing a library written in a functional style to a hierarchy of classes and interfaces might be totally reasonable to someone who lives and breathes OOP. To them, the first style is not comprehensible and therefore "wrong". But does it actually solve any problem?