Hacker News Reader

Comment by EpicEng | Hacker News Reader

For me, it's less about number of files than it is "hoeany files do I have to open to figure out how something works? How many levels of indirection do I have to keep in my head?"

I started out writing low-ish level code. Motion control, image processing, digital imaging, and the application level code that coordinated it all. I've steadily moved up the abstraction tree over the last 13 years and there's one thing I hate about it; too many fundtions and classes which do far too little. Abstraction for abstraction's sake.

It's a bit subjective of course and not everyone has their own style, but there is a Starbucks difference in philosophy between the two types of groups.

View on HN

> [how many] files do I have to open to figure out how something works?

With jump-to-definition editor integration, who cares?

Anyone who actually worked with code requiring so much jumping.

I did, in an IDE, and I can tell you, jump-to-definition removes the problem of "what file do I have to open now?", but still leaves you with the questions like "where am I?", "how did I get here?" and "what was I trying to understand, again?", which you start asking yourself after ~sixth jump.

> "how did I get here?"

In emacs go-mode, pop-tag-mark will take you back to where you jumped from.

I know.

It'll take me one level up, which is not sufficient to answer my question, and by the time I find my bearings again, I have to jump back down a couple levels.

I've done a lot of this, both for Common Lisp codebases in Emacs, and for Java codebases in IntelliJ. Having to jump around and remember stuff eats into "7 ± 2" short-term memory limit that you need for the code you're working on.

(With Emacs, it's at least a tad easier to split the window to have 4+ different in view at the same time.)

Yeah, I like to use a couple of big monitors plus my laptop screen, and have all the relevant code visually accessible at once.

Not to language bash, but situations like this are why I avoid "enterprise" patterns and abstractions. Not that they aren't ever useful, but they're often implemented before they are needed, or not needed at all in practical terms. Some C# and Java tend to be some of the worst examples I've encountered. Even if the languages themselves can have much simpler implementations.

Java has these scaffolding developers who spend great deal of time in writing, 'ticket booking', 'toy/video stores' etc with all technology, framework, libs they are looking to learn. None of this code does anything useful but developers add to their resume claiming they developed reservation systems and e-commerce platform with mongoDB or whatever.

I'd add this kind of bullshit started directly from Sun Microsystems when they gave us Java EE blueprints to develop end-to-end enterprise solutions in all seriousness.

"far too little" it sounds good but you need to think about what you're saying. Do you want a function to be doing too much or too little. I think any sensible programmer will choose too little. It's easier to understand. This isn't about abstraction and the trendy fashion that is the irrational fear of it nowadays. Is about people being better at tackling problems in small doses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com