Grant me the serenity to accept the bad code i shouldn't fix, the courage to change the code I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
Well, It's really early in the morning and I've got the quote of the day already
I'm imagining the Silicon Valley scene where the character Gilfoyle has set up a loud death-metal automated noise that plays whenever the price of Bitcoin meets certain conditions... except the trigger is some kind of code-quality metric, the effect is my machine shouting at me to become serene.
And I think there is a place for perl, just like there is a place for bash one-liners.
The authors example is personal software. The things we write to scratch our own little itches, that do not need to be shared or developed together with other people.
My pet peeve is that macos is really unfriendly to people solving their own problems.
It is really hard to script anything.
I know that there are shell scripts. I know that there is applescript and automator.
In my experience, if you want to do some script-level task to make your life easier - the effort required is high and the chances of success are uncertain.
Is this by design? Do they want you to buy your tools and scripts instead of easily creating them yourself?
If you have the perseverance to automate things, you have to dig deep into the apple-invented compiled languages objective-c or swift.
Now with ai, I suspect people will be able to leapfrog over the no-scripting canyon and do the things they want.
I found an excellent way to avoid premature abstraction and optimization and to write better software in general was to explicitly consider v1.x a throw-away.
Build something expedient that works well enough to deploy in the field, get actual user feedback and system metrics (e.g., where are the actual bottlenecks). Do a few iterations on user feedback and system metrics. NOW, you are much further down the road to a true final spec, and you can use that real information to design the real system to scale up on.
One Test Is Worth A Thousand Opinions.
This plan first tests your ideas against the real world of users, hardware, and data flows, and keeps a lot of technical debt out of the scaling system.
I discovered it a bit by accident, having previously been really big on early abstraction and planning, but sort of having to do this in one startup, and it was a real eye-opener how well it worked.
(in today's context: especially if you upload temporary Thing to GitHub & co)
The code in front of you works today, but will become unfit for purpose and un-salvageable, and we want to ensure that when that inevitable end happens, there is a sane and safe way to systematically chop it out and replace it with something else, something you are not capable of predicting.
There's substantial overlap with general principles like loose-coupling and modularity, but the framing changes how people apply them: Instead of trying to create durable Amazing-Thing which will be used for many years by people amazed at your foresight making it "flexible" and "modular" and "customizable", you focus on creating Inoffensive-Thing which can be easily killed off or dismantled for useful parts.
Fantastic