This change frustrates me because I am trying to fix a bug, and the new pattern driven spaghetti flow is slowing me down. The bug is probably connected to the introduction of this pattern
Even when I invest tens of thousands of dollars of my own money to hire professional narrators to record my audiobooks, if I sell them on Audible, *they* get the final say in how my readers use the product *I* paid to create. If I provide my readers with a tool to unwrap Audible's DRM from my copyrighted books, *I* become a copyright infringer! I violate Section 1201 of the DMCA and I can go to prison for five years and face a $500,000 fine. For a first offense.
I like functional programming. Yet I am afraid that when the community dogmatically jumps into it as functional = good, OOP bad we are not helping functional or the industry at large.
Doing this closes the world of possibilities. Perhaps using logical programming makes solving a problem easier. But we won't even consider it if we don't even know that it exists
It was unfortunate that the refactoring community used the word "smell" for clues of where we can improve code. "Smell" is a powerful metaphor, but it also suppresses useful discussions. Maybe in this context having this pattern makes sense. Yet it is harder to make the argument if you are defending code that "stinks".
I like more neutral words like "clues" for possible refactoring
A new study finds 3,000 websites on which third-party tracking companies scoop up what you type into forms in real time — even if you never hit submit. This happens on about 1,800 websites for E.U. users too, likely in violation of the GDPR.
Nonviolent ukulele player who codes
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!