dandi8

joined 5 months ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

I feel like I'd believe it if the headline was about John McAfee.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

In my experience LLMs do absolutely terribly with writing unit tests.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

IMO this perspective that we're all just "reimplementing basic CRUD" applications is the reason why so many software projects fail.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Good abstractions are important for the code to be readable. An AbstractEventHandlerManager is probably not a good abstraction.

The original commenter said that their code was "generic with lot of interfaces and polymorphism" - it sounds like they chose abstractions which hindered maintainability and readability.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Is it possible that you just chose the wrong abstractions?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I do, and whether I have a good time depends on whether they have written their code well, of which the book's suggestions are only one metric.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (4 children)

How do abstractions help with that? Can you tell, from the symptoms, which "level of abstraction" contains the bug? Or do you need to read through all six (or however many) "levels", across multiple modules and functions, to find the error?

I usually start from the lowest abstraction, where the stack trace points me and don't need to look at the rest, because my code is written well.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (8 children)

It's only as incomprehensible as you make it.

If there are 6 subfunctions, that means there's 6 levels of abstraction (assuming the method extraction was not done blindly), which further suggests that maybe they should actually be part of a different class (or classes). Why would you be interested in 6 levels of abstraction at once?

But we're arguing hypotheticals here. Of course you can make the method implementations a complete mess, the book cannot guarantee that the person applying the principles used their brain, as well.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I never claimed it's not important, I'm just saying it's not relevant here, as there is no context to where this method was put in the code.

As I said, it might be top-level. You have to mutate state somewhere, because that's what applications ultimately do. You just don't want state mutations everywhere, because that makes bad code.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Clean code does not prevent writing bad code, it just makes it a bit easier to write good code.

OF COURSE you can follow the principles and still write bad code, because so much more goes into it, including skill.

A giant method with everything laid out, potentially mixing abstractions sounds like a nightmare to me. It leads to cognitive overload.

view more: ‹ prev next ›