Been thinking about this. "Generalized" is usually the wrong thing anyway. Every inessential option is a failure to make a design decision.https://twitter.com/jlongster/status/879332102931722241 …
-
-
3: popular libraries. Obviously there is some value in sharing, but "X is the new jQuery, it's already won!" argues that we should be
-
4/4: all driving towards one solution, which leads to the problem this thread is complaining about.
-
I think you missed the subtle distinction I made elsewhere about "generalized" vs "generally applicable". I want latter, not former.
-
Perils: "If you have a procedure with ten parameters, you probably missed some"
-
The problem is one of deseminating techniques. Each parameter is an affordance, but building blocks don't necessarily invite you to use them
-
This is the fundamental problem with unix philosophy etc for popular projects: it requires users to have skill and taste to use them well
-
And this isn't about trashing some particular programmers: even experts lack skill and taste in new areas, so gravitate towards affordences
-
Fair. I'm basically saying that the tech community objects to solutions for small domains ("frameworks"), instead pushing for paradigms
- 1 more reply
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.