Hacker News Reader

This is terrible advice. You absolutely should structure your code with a view to the future. Easily refactorable code is synonymous with good code. And using the right abstractions makes this happen. Consult a domain expert to find out what you will need. This is what experience is for.

View on HN

Yes, but you shouldn't structure for a future that isn't likely to actually happen. And if you keep things reasonably modular in general, it shouldn't be a major lift to refactor if that future does arrive. Still, Beck didn't do a very good job convincing me. And if you have to always explain what "Real" Blub is and how almost no one practices Real Blub, then maybe Blub was just never a good maxim to begin with.

> And if you have to always explain what "Real" Blub is and how almost no one practices Real Blub, then maybe Blub was just never a good maxim to begin with.

I'll push back.

No-one I work with seems to practice "real DI", "real encapsulation", or "real agile", and the software is the worse for it.

Good point, though I'll try to draw a distinction between those and subjective-opinion-based slogans like "YAGNI". Maybe I should just limit it to that one: YAGNYAGNI?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com