Had to work with some code I wrote a few years ago where I went maximally polymorphic for the hell of it - it was just as painful as when working with badly documented and poorly tested dynamically checked code.
Show this thread
-
But surely you'll agree that the reverse is true? Being able to claim that you *will* need it when you don't need it now also requires a lot of experience, and there *is* a cost, in terms of technical debt, to having to maintain code that you don't actually need?
Not so much... as I said in my last (chronologically speaking; I have no idea where I am in this thread any more) tweet, I think that it's harder to write bugs in generic code.
-
-
To try to exemplify that, the less you presume about your inputs (i.e. the more abstract your types), the less chance there is of presuming something incorrectly.
-
You can define the most generic, parametric method, and there can be only one possible way of implementing it (typesafely). That becomes less true the more concrete your inputs are. There becomes more chance you'll have to revisit that method. That's more technical debt.
- Show 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.