145
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2024
145 points (95.0% liked)
Programming
17314 readers
10 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
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 !webdev@programming.dev
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I see what you’re getting at it, and I agree we shouldn’t increase the load for juniors upfront. But I think the point is mainly there are better resources for juniors to start with than Clean Code. So yeah, the best option is to throw it out completely and let juniors start elsewhere instead, otherwise they are starting with many bad parts they don’t yet realize are bad. That too would increase cognitive load because they would need to unlearn those lessons again.
Exactly. The article is pretty clear with this point. Junior devs aren't the ones we should be giving mixed bags of advice to.
I’m all for it! What’s the resource that solves this problem?
It must be perfect since we can’t ever give mixed bags of advice. There are apparently better resources although I didn’t see one in the article and things like Code Complete and Pragmatic Programmer address a lot of the same things. Hell, we probably shouldn’t talk about The Mythical Man-Month anymore either. Do we also throw out Design Patterns since singletons are arguably bad design these days?
Literally no need for that level of sarcasm.
I took the things defined in the comments responding to mine and extended them. If we can’t share a mixed bag, all of the things I highlighted are out. It would be logically inconsistent to think otherwise starting from your conclusions. Either we have perfect resources or we have, as I called out, to pick and choose our battles. I want to see a perfect resource not ad hominem.
Edit: genuinely surprised to see someone on a CS instance not understand reductio ad absurdum/impossibile (depending on how you feel about Gang of Four)
Telling you that you don't need to be sarcastic is not ad hominem.
Your response was to call my argument sarcasm. That is directed at me rather than what I said. That’s quite literally, not figuratively, the definition of sarcasm.
I wish you the best of luck. You don’t seem to be interested in the comments unless it agrees with you and you have yet to share a perfect resource. Have fun!
You're not owed a response. This is an internet forum, not a debate. If I don't want to engage with someone who is being sarcastic and condescending that's allowed. Especially so when your first reply to me was a straw man argument. I never claimed perfect advice exists. You're acting as if I would look at something 99% good and say it's a "mixed bag" of advice because it isn't 100% good. I don't know how to view that as something other than sarcasm. I don't know how to take saying things like how you're shocked people wouldn't know this as something other than condescension. All you've done is act hostile towards me. And for what, because I mildly disagreed with something you said and refused to take the bait and get in a flame war? Literally even now you close this comment with sarcasm.
Life is too short for this shit. If you wanted a real discussion maybe say "I didn't mean that sarcastically," instead of being condescending.