Programming

17386 readers

512 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

snowe

Ategon

[email protected]

131

I love programming but I hate the programming industry (www.deathbyabstraction.com)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/programming

44 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I don't entirely subscribe to the first paragraph – I've never worked at a place so dear to me that spurred me to spend time thinking about its architecture (beyond the usual rants). Other than that, spot on

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Hmmm... That's true, my rough litmus test is "can you explain what this thing does in fairly precise language without having to add a bunch of qualifiers for different cases?"

If you meet that bar the function is probably fine/doesn't need broken up further.

That said, I don't particularly care how many functions I have to jump through or what their line count is because I can verify "did the function do the thing it says it's supposed to do?" after it's called in a debugger. If it did, then I know my bug isn't there. If it didn't, I know where to look.

Just like with commits, I'd rather have more small commits to feed through git bisect than a few larger commits because it makes identifying where/when a contract/test case/invariant was violated much more straight forward.