5 ms·
Okay, I almost wish I hadn't read this comment because it is so similar to what I have in part 2! So please don't be annoyed when you see it in a couple of week
by ericevans 5y ago
Okay, I almost wish I hadn't read this comment because it is so similar to what I have in part 2! So please don't be annoyed when you see it in a couple of weeks ;-)
I actually separated it into a separate part because it undermines my primary point. Sure, we all love it when we have a better decomposition, better names, and everything falls into place. But it doesn't always. Not in the time we have. So then we need ways to deal with the flaws.
I decided that if I had ended with this it would have communicated: Aw, just keep trying and you'll get something nice! That can be very risky.
- stickfigure 5y agoThe only thing advanceBy has going for it is that when the programmer inevitably tries to type add (after wondering why plus turns up nothing), the IDE _might_ show it in a dropdown.
- bottled_poe 5y agoOk, but that’s when you read the docs. Also, in many languages, those expected methods could be mocked out to raise compiler errors, redirecting the developer to the correct methods.
- ExtraE 5y agoHeh. You didn’t have a perfect example but you went with what you had and shipped.