←back to thread

192 points imasl42 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
shakna ◴[] No.45311422[source]
> bikeshedding function names

... Function names compose much of the API.

The API is the structure of the codebase.

This isn't some triviality you can throw aside as unimportant, it is the shape that the code has today, and limits and controls what it will have tomorrow.

It's how you make things intuitive, and it is equally how you ensure people follow a correct flow and don't trap themselves into a security bug.

replies(4): >>45311467 #>>45311534 #>>45311834 #>>45312683 #
AirMax98 ◴[] No.45311534[source]
I really disagree with this too, especially given the article's next line:

> ...You’ll be forever tweaking individual lines of code, asking for a .reduce instead of a .map.filter, bikeshedding function names, and so on. At the same time, you’ll miss the opportunity to guide the AI away from architectural dead ends.

I think a good review will often do both, and understand that code happens at the line level and also the structural level. It implies a philosophy of coding that I have seen be incredibly destructive firsthand — committing a bunch of shit that no one on a team understands and no one knows how to reuse.

replies(1): >>45311694 #
1. tossandthrow ◴[] No.45311694[source]
> for a .reduce instead of a .map.filter...

This is distinctly not the api, but an implementation detail.

Personally, i can ask colleagues to change function names, rework hierarchy, etc. But leave this exact example be, as it does not have any material difference difference - regardless of my personal preference.