Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Moonside wrote

Reply to comment by musou in no, you see, it's what i call "self-obfuscating code" by twovests

I feel like this is, again, some Uncle Bob bullshit. Seriously, fuck that sexist prick. He has this schtick about how TDD is all and other techniques to improve reliability and reduce errors are bullshit. Like I would be much more congenial to the attitude if it implied things like (choose your own picks):

  1. programming by contract
  2. property based testing
  3. fuzzers
  4. unit testing
  5. integration testing
  6. good method documentation, perhaps with (an) example(s)
  7. literate programming
  8. code review
  9. formal specs
  10. some nicer type system
  11. pair programming
  12. safer languages - if there are no segfaults, you don't need to advertise the risk of one
  13. Have some people dedicated on hammering your software in evil manners
  14. proofs (but that's avant garde tbh)
  15. stats on commits/bugs per product, project, package, module, file, method/function. If something gets a lot of work done, unleash the testers.
  16. Outsourcing to Donald Knuth

I think it's the case usually that this comment hater has one or three favorite techniques they like and thus disregard the rest of the universe and I bet they don't even have TAOCP on their book shelf.

2

musou wrote

this!! holy shit this.

and it's funny that you mention the knuth books because reading knuth is what got me into literate programming tools that would send comment hater types into apoplexy.

1

Moonside wrote

I've read some of TeX book and a little bit of Knuth's journal articles, but face the facts, dude rules and when it seems like he's wrong (like with goto), he always had something interesting to say about it.

3