8 ms·

The Parley Letter

132 points by thisduck 14y ago

rb2k_ 14y ago
He keeps writing "Parsley" instead of "Parely". For other non-native english speakers (like me), here's the defintion: Parley: Parley (/ˈpɑrli/) is a discussion or conference, especially one between enemies over terms of a truce or other matters. For example, in Julius Caesar (a tragedy by William Shakespeare), the respective followers and armies of Brutus and Antony are ready for a truce. The root of the word parley is parler, which is the French verb "to speak" Parsely: Garden parsley is a bright green, hairless, biennial, herbaceous plant in temperate climates, or an annual herb in subtropical and tropical areas.
- jeremymcanally 14y ago
  My guess is that iOS autocorrect strikes again. :)
  - unimpressive 14y ago
    Autocorrect is a bad idea. The kind of spelling error that iOS corrects (At least as far as I know.) is a syntactic error. Whereas the kind of error that autocorrect introduces is a semantic error. A semantic error is much worse than a syntactic one. At worst, a syntactic error leaves your meaning ambiguous. At worst, a semantic error leaves your meaning incorrect or inverted. Usually you can read past a syntactic error, but a semantic error could change the tone or meaning of your entire message.
    - T-hawk 14y ago
      Well, it's a question of total value, weighted by frequency. If the autocorrection gets ten syntactic errors fixed for every one semantic error it introduces, it's probably a net gain for the writer.
      - unimpressive 14y ago
        One abnormally bad semantic error can be worth a thousand syntactic errors.
        andrewflnr 14y ago
        Have a little care, then. You have to be careful anyway with a touch keyboard. Autocorrect makes me faster, by correcting most errors without making me stop, and that's all I ask of it. I can't recall a time it's stung me in a major way; I can't count the number of times it helps me every day.
Rygu 14y ago
Some related posts that probably spawned this article. You can find DHH's response in the comments: http://gammons.github.com/architecture/2012/12/22/where-the-logic-hides/ http://gammons.github.com/architecture/2012/12/22/where-the-... This talk (31 min, grab some coffee) also gives a better context. http://confreaks.com/videos/1125-gogaruco2012-mega-rails http://confreaks.com/videos/1125-gogaruco2012-mega-rails
- bdcravens 14y ago
  My understanding is that this article was in response to various questions that were asked of him on the Ruby Rogues Parley list (all guests are on the list, and others can pay to be on the list). Of course, recent topics he covered like hypermedia were colored by those recent discussions.
xentronium 14y ago
I guess we need a new entry in http://rubydramas.com http://rubydramas.com
- pbiggar 14y ago
  You know, this strikes me as very sane and cogent essay into maintainability and rails. Where does the drama come form?
  - jrabone 14y ago
    It's inherent in everything the Ruby community does - sooner or later someone will come along and write a 14 page diatribe about how DHH is full of shit and then flounce out in a cloud of opprobrium.
    - fatbird 14y ago
      Read the Archeopteryx entry on Ruby Dramas for a preview of that.
  - xentronium 14y ago
    To DHH credit, he always has fair points in his opinions, but the way he expresses these points is never diplomatic. For example, he couldn't resist making some blanket statements about java world and rspec. I am not sure about how intentional that is, but it surely is dramatical in 'flame war eliciting' sense of word.
    - pbiggar 14y ago
      The JAva point I felt was truly fair here. Servlets were good, but then it became the huge EJB which was bad. His rspec opinion - as expressed here that is - was "I dont like the DSL". Those seem fine really.
      - cunac 14y ago
        Just as a pointer I would recommend to get up to date with latest JEE specs and standards before making judgement What I see is most people base their opinion on EJB2 from past and they keep ranting about that. Also java ecosystem doesn't start and end with JEE
typicalrunt 14y ago
I think some clarity is in order. While Java certainly isn't a pinnacle of language design, it took quite a few years of devolution to go from something relatively simple like servlets to the steaming pile of shit that is J2EE I believe he means to say EJB here, and not J2EE, because Servlets are a part of J2EE.
- jrabone 14y ago
  Yeah, and I don't think he's been keeping up with Java EE 6 - EJBs are dead, long live JPA annotations. Of course, Spring is likely on borrowed time too. Just maybe we can lose the whole concept of a "framework", lightweight or not, that has kept those architects in business for so long.
  - cunac 14y ago
    why antagonism to architects ? It is only developer which actually will think about implications of what is doing from more than one point. It would be nice if I see more developers doing that instead just coding big pile of ..(you got a picture I guess)
- dhh 14y ago
  J2EE's sins include far more than just EJB. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Platform,_Enterprise_Edition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Platform,_Enterprise_Editi.... Servlets got just started running with a bad crowd, even though deep down it was a good kid.
  - mhw 14y ago
    Personally I wouldn't let servlets off that easily. One of the basic design choices they made was one request handling function per class (the service method, delegating to doGet/doPost/etc for http requests). As a result, most applications actually needed another framework on top of servlets to do routing based on request URL and mapping on to some model of server side components, like MVC. See for example struts, spring, webwork and a host of other java frameworks that were around at the time Rails appeared on the scene. At the time, Rails' routes file and having classes grouping related controller methods together was a clear demonstration of what the servlet API had got wrong. Heck, the architects even designed it as a completely generic request/response framework with http as just one possible protocol. When http is your 99.9% use case, that just smacks of over-engineering.
aGHz 14y ago
1970: "Another part of the necessary art of calling bullshit is to take down good ideas when they become inflated beyond what they can bear. Organizing your instructions in a clear way is a reasonable idea that I support. But there's just not enough there there to dress it up in function calls, machine optimization, and all the other -- here's that word again! -- wankery that passes for muster in the compilers orthodoxy." 1980: "Another part of the necessary art of calling bullshit is to take down good ideas when they become inflated beyond what they can bear. Separating your code in functions that address single concerns is a reasonable idea that I support. But there's just not enough there there to dress it up in models, controllers, views, and all the other -- here's that word again! -- wankery that passes for muster in the MVC orthodoxy." 2010: (and this one's verbatim) "Another part of the necessary art of calling bullshit is to take down good ideas when they become inflated beyond what they can bear. Using URLs instead of IDs in your json responses is a reasonable idea that I support. But there's just not enough there there to dress it up in HATEOAS, HAL, custom mime types, and all the other -- here's that word again! -- wankery that passes for muster in the hypermedia orthodoxy." I never could understand this attitude of overt antagonism towards people who care about architecture. If you aren't partial to such discussions yourself, at least show some respect for the people who, through years of wankerous discussion and debate, came up with and subsequently refined the pattern that propelled you to fame (or in the case of us mortals, at least gave us the tools to make our programming life a little easier). Now, I understand this particular guy is deeply invested in the MVC architecture. But that doesn't mean history stops here. REST (despite a long but somewhat underground history) and hypermedia are still in their infancy as an architecture. Many, many problems still remain unsolved and the process of debate meant to distill the good from the bad necessarily looks to outsiders as "wankery". Still, show some respect. The next person of Heinemeier's caliber will likely make their fame by bringing REST to the masses.
- dhh 14y ago
  Not every new architectural idea is a good one. Lots fell by the wayside over the years. See J2EE or Naked Objects (I actually kinda liked that one). Bad ideas fail faster when criticism is brought forward which opens the floor to new, better ideas.
georgemcbay 14y ago
I agree wholeheartedly with with dhh's stated philosophy on the fact that code talks, bullshit walks and writing "future proof" code is a terrible idea (one that virtually every journeyman developer stupidly clings to for a while at some point in their career). But at the same time I'm not a Ruby fan, in large part due to the monkey patching ability he holds so dear. Given the same philosophical outlook but perhaps less inherent trust in developers (including myself!) to always do the Right Thing, I've come to really appreciate Go as a no-bullshit language that does allow you to hang yourself (eg. the unsafe package, ability to ignore error returns via '_' variables, etc) but it at least makes you tie the rope to the ceiling before you can use it, so you have time to think about whether or not you really want to use it.

132 points by thisduck 14y ago

rb2k_ 14y ago

He keeps writing "Parsley" instead of "Parely". For other non-native english speakers (like me), here's the defintion: Parley: Parley (/ˈpɑrli/) is a discussion or conference, especially one between enemies over terms of a truce or other matters. For example, in Julius Caesar (a tragedy by William Shakespeare), the respective followers and armies of Brutus and Antony are ready for a truce. The root of the word parley is parler, which is the French verb "to speak" Parsely: Garden parsley is a bright green, hairless, biennial, herbaceous plant in temperate climates, or an annual herb in subtropical and tropical areas.

jeremymcanally 14y ago
My guess is that iOS autocorrect strikes again. :)
- unimpressive 14y ago
  Autocorrect is a bad idea. The kind of spelling error that iOS corrects (At least as far as I know.) is a syntactic error. Whereas the kind of error that autocorrect introduces is a semantic error. A semantic error is much worse than a syntactic one. At worst, a syntactic error leaves your meaning ambiguous. At worst, a semantic error leaves your meaning incorrect or inverted. Usually you can read past a syntactic error, but a semantic error could change the tone or meaning of your entire message.
  - T-hawk 14y ago
    Well, it's a question of total value, weighted by frequency. If the autocorrection gets ten syntactic errors fixed for every one semantic error it introduces, it's probably a net gain for the writer.
    - unimpressive 14y ago
      One abnormally bad semantic error can be worth a thousand syntactic errors.
      - andrewflnr 14y ago
        Have a little care, then. You have to be careful anyway with a touch keyboard. Autocorrect makes me faster, by correcting most errors without making me stop, and that's all I ask of it. I can't recall a time it's stung me in a major way; I can't count the number of times it helps me every day.

Rygu 14y ago

Some related posts that probably spawned this article. You can find DHH's response in the comments: http://gammons.github.com/architecture/2012/12/22/where-the-logic-hides/ http://gammons.github.com/architecture/2012/12/22/where-the-... This talk (31 min, grab some coffee) also gives a better context. http://confreaks.com/videos/1125-gogaruco2012-mega-rails http://confreaks.com/videos/1125-gogaruco2012-mega-rails

bdcravens 14y ago
My understanding is that this article was in response to various questions that were asked of him on the Ruby Rogues Parley list (all guests are on the list, and others can pay to be on the list). Of course, recent topics he covered like hypermedia were colored by those recent discussions.

xentronium 14y ago

I guess we need a new entry in http://rubydramas.com http://rubydramas.com

pbiggar 14y ago
You know, this strikes me as very sane and cogent essay into maintainability and rails. Where does the drama come form?
- jrabone 14y ago
  It's inherent in everything the Ruby community does - sooner or later someone will come along and write a 14 page diatribe about how DHH is full of shit and then flounce out in a cloud of opprobrium.
  - fatbird 14y ago
    Read the Archeopteryx entry on Ruby Dramas for a preview of that.
- xentronium 14y ago
  To DHH credit, he always has fair points in his opinions, but the way he expresses these points is never diplomatic. For example, he couldn't resist making some blanket statements about java world and rspec. I am not sure about how intentional that is, but it surely is dramatical in 'flame war eliciting' sense of word.
  - pbiggar 14y ago
    The JAva point I felt was truly fair here. Servlets were good, but then it became the huge EJB which was bad. His rspec opinion - as expressed here that is - was "I dont like the DSL". Those seem fine really.
    - cunac 14y ago
      Just as a pointer I would recommend to get up to date with latest JEE specs and standards before making judgement What I see is most people base their opinion on EJB2 from past and they keep ranting about that. Also java ecosystem doesn't start and end with JEE

typicalrunt 14y ago

I think some clarity is in order. While Java certainly isn't a pinnacle of language design, it took quite a few years of devolution to go from something relatively simple like servlets to the steaming pile of shit that is J2EE I believe he means to say EJB here, and not J2EE, because Servlets are a part of J2EE.

jrabone 14y ago
Yeah, and I don't think he's been keeping up with Java EE 6 - EJBs are dead, long live JPA annotations. Of course, Spring is likely on borrowed time too. Just maybe we can lose the whole concept of a "framework", lightweight or not, that has kept those architects in business for so long.
- cunac 14y ago
  why antagonism to architects ? It is only developer which actually will think about implications of what is doing from more than one point. It would be nice if I see more developers doing that instead just coding big pile of ..(you got a picture I guess)
dhh 14y ago
J2EE's sins include far more than just EJB. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Platform,_Enterprise_Edition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Platform,_Enterprise_Editi.... Servlets got just started running with a bad crowd, even though deep down it was a good kid.
- mhw 14y ago
  Personally I wouldn't let servlets off that easily. One of the basic design choices they made was one request handling function per class (the service method, delegating to doGet/doPost/etc for http requests). As a result, most applications actually needed another framework on top of servlets to do routing based on request URL and mapping on to some model of server side components, like MVC. See for example struts, spring, webwork and a host of other java frameworks that were around at the time Rails appeared on the scene. At the time, Rails' routes file and having classes grouping related controller methods together was a clear demonstration of what the servlet API had got wrong. Heck, the architects even designed it as a completely generic request/response framework with http as just one possible protocol. When http is your 99.9% use case, that just smacks of over-engineering.

aGHz 14y ago

1970: "Another part of the necessary art of calling bullshit is to take down good ideas when they become inflated beyond what they can bear. Organizing your instructions in a clear way is a reasonable idea that I support. But there's just not enough there there to dress it up in function calls, machine optimization, and all the other -- here's that word again! -- wankery that passes for muster in the compilers orthodoxy." 1980: "Another part of the necessary art of calling bullshit is to take down good ideas when they become inflated beyond what they can bear. Separating your code in functions that address single concerns is a reasonable idea that I support. But there's just not enough there there to dress it up in models, controllers, views, and all the other -- here's that word again! -- wankery that passes for muster in the MVC orthodoxy." 2010: (and this one's verbatim) "Another part of the necessary art of calling bullshit is to take down good ideas when they become inflated beyond what they can bear. Using URLs instead of IDs in your json responses is a reasonable idea that I support. But there's just not enough there there to dress it up in HATEOAS, HAL, custom mime types, and all the other -- here's that word again! -- wankery that passes for muster in the hypermedia orthodoxy." I never could understand this attitude of overt antagonism towards people who care about architecture. If you aren't partial to such discussions yourself, at least show some respect for the people who, through years of wankerous discussion and debate, came up with and subsequently refined the pattern that propelled you to fame (or in the case of us mortals, at least gave us the tools to make our programming life a little easier). Now, I understand this particular guy is deeply invested in the MVC architecture. But that doesn't mean history stops here. REST (despite a long but somewhat underground history) and hypermedia are still in their infancy as an architecture. Many, many problems still remain unsolved and the process of debate meant to distill the good from the bad necessarily looks to outsiders as "wankery". Still, show some respect. The next person of Heinemeier's caliber will likely make their fame by bringing REST to the masses.

dhh 14y ago
Not every new architectural idea is a good one. Lots fell by the wayside over the years. See J2EE or Naked Objects (I actually kinda liked that one). Bad ideas fail faster when criticism is brought forward which opens the floor to new, better ideas.

georgemcbay 14y ago

I agree wholeheartedly with with dhh's stated philosophy on the fact that code talks, bullshit walks and writing "future proof" code is a terrible idea (one that virtually every journeyman developer stupidly clings to for a while at some point in their career). But at the same time I'm not a Ruby fan, in large part due to the monkey patching ability he holds so dear. Given the same philosophical outlook but perhaps less inherent trust in developers (including myself!) to always do the Right Thing, I've come to really appreciate Go as a no-bullshit language that does allow you to hang yourself (eg. the unsafe package, ability to ignore error returns via '_' variables, etc) but it at least makes you tie the rope to the ceiling before you can use it, so you have time to think about whether or not you really want to use it.