>Note: This post is rated PG-13 for use of a mild expletive. If you are likely to be offended by the repeated use a word commonly heard in elementary school playgrounds, please don’t read any further. Mild as this ironic passive aggressiveness is, can't imagine something like this in modern sterile corporate messaging.
This Code Is CRAP (2011)
11–20 of 55 posts
Re: This Code Is CRAP (2011)
#12Re: This Code Is CRAP (2011)
#13(2011)
Re: This Code Is CRAP (2011)
#14The pendulum has swung too far in the direction of class, function, cyclomatic complexity (and here, CRAP) and similar idiotic metrics. This reminds me of a talk Sandi Metz did called "All the Little Things" where she covers the Gilded Rose kata. In the talk, she reworks her solution until there's almost nothing left showing the essence of the problem being solved. The cyclomatic complexity metric is touted at each s…
Something like abstractions traversed during interpretation, lines of abstraction v.s. functional implementation, or logic statement dispersion.
It was hard to pin down what was abstraction vs. implementation, but it's much easier now.
Re: This Code Is CRAP (2011)
#15Re: This Code Is CRAP (2011)
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe the "This" might have gotten swallowed by HN's title normalizer.
This title normalizer is crap.
I have no idea what the website would look like without it, but I have a feeling it does more good than harm.
Re: This Code Is CRAP (2011)
#17Re: This Code Is CRAP (2011)
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
This title normalizer is crap.
In its (admittedly weak) defense, if the submitter edits the title back during the few-minute window after submitting where this is possible, the normalizer does not kick back in. But it is a bit opaque, in the sense that the poster needs to: realize that the title has been changed; know that they can edit the title (but not too slow!); and know that it won't be filtered through again. I have no idea what the website…
Re: This Code Is CRAP (2011)
#19Re: This Code Is CRAP (2011)
#20The pendulum has swung too far in the direction of class, function, cyclomatic complexity (and here, CRAP) and similar idiotic metrics. This reminds me of a talk Sandi Metz did called "All the Little Things" where she covers the Gilded Rose kata. In the talk, she reworks her solution until there's almost nothing left showing the essence of the problem being solved. The cyclomatic complexity metric is touted at each s…
As I recall, he concluded that there’s really no support for then-popular ideas like short functions, reducing cyclomatic complexity, avoiding explicit branch statements and loops, or TDD. (Tests yes, just not TDD.)
He made a pretty strong case that only two principles are particularly robust. One was that limiting code volume is good. The other is that working people too hard is bad.