However, Rich is basically saying, "Please think! Think about how things are connected and how you might un-connect them and whether that might be a good idea!" The talk is basically a really churched-up coupling & cohesion review. It's really not *that* special.
Your interpretation explains the "guardrail programming" thing in a reasonable way, but literally every other time I've seen that section of the talk cited, it's cited to mean that types = bad since types = guardrails = crashing, which (IMO) is an absurd viewpoint.
-
-
You might say that all of these other people are misinterpreting the talk, but if that many people misinterpret the talk, I think that saying that they're misinterpreting the talk is blaming the user. This is the perspective I personally have when I write, YMMV on this.
-
IMO, Rich's style is similar to PG's, in that he makes a series of strong but vague claims that could mean many different things. I don't know about Rich, but PG will often respond to criticism by saying that he was misread, even when the majority of readers have the "misreading"
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.