Trying not to let that distract me though.
-
-
Replying to @mekajfire @steveklabnik
I think this is just the benefit of experience, but experienced devs also need to remember not to overabstract
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @wycats @steveklabnik
Abstractions are great, but only when widely applicable *and* understandable. Learning design/use space first is key.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @mekajfire @steveklabnik
over time, you get better at identifying no-brainers.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @steveklabnik @mekajfire
it's contextual, but I find that deep skepticism of basic abstractions fades over time.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @wycats @steveklabnik
Example that comes to mind is modeling a contiguous address space using a binary tree.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
wasn't always obvious to me when/why that might be a good idea, but experience and understanding of domain led there.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Agreed that it's contextual. eg Haskell typeclasses are generalized, clean abstractions yet take time to appreciate.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I often feel I'm caught in a loop relearning various abstractions. Some are too expensive to use regularly.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes
I like to think of it as a spiral, not a loop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutic_circle … /cc @littlecalculist
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.