• space_comrade [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Most types force premature design/optimization.

    I disagree. What you’re saying is true for Java-like OOP languages because OOP is actually complete garbage if you want to design good, easy to understand abstractions. Types are way more elegant in functional or functional-inspired languages.

    Most unit tests lock up some specific implementation (increasing cost of inevitable refactors) rather than prevent actual bugs.

    Agreed, unit tests are useless in most cases, they mostly test the bullshit abstractions you built for the unit tests themselves.

    • russ@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think you’re right re:oop - let’s throw that in there too.

      One problem is naming things - bad names/naming conventions can start things off in a bad direction, so you spend forever figuring one out… but do you really need this thing you’re naming after all?

      Maybe the hot-take is more like: All code is bad, so less code is better…. what should we drop first?