Comment by t4nkd | Hacker News Reader

Comment by t4nkd | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

So, was this meant to be a counter point to DHH's article in any way? I really just got that you're mighty pissed that RR Parley banned some of your posts.

Dually, DHH didn't say TDD was dead, he specifically said "TDD is dead /to him/".

Really, I think the most important take away even for people who disagree, is this: > I don't think that's healthy. Test-first units leads to an overly complex web of intermediary objects and indirection in order to avoid doing anything that's "slow". Like hitting the database. Or file IO. Or going through the browser to test the whole system. It's given birth to some truly horrendous monstrosities of architecture. A dense jungle of service objects, command patterns, and worse.

I'd like to see someone form a well constructed argument for why that statement is inaccurate, over-stated, or otherwise unfair instead of just ranting about how trying to disagree with what DHH posts ends up putting you on the receiving end of a bunch of zealous admins.

> I'd like to see someone form a well constructed argument for why that statement is inaccurate, over-stated, or otherwise unfair

Here's his statement again, rewritten without the Fox News-style editorialization:

"Test-first units lead to a graph of intermediary objects in order to avoid doing things that are outside the scope of your test. This practice isolates the piece of code you are testing, but as a side-effect means that you don't do unnecessarily slow work like hitting a database, filesystem or web browser. It has given rise to new patterns of application architecture such as a service and command layers."

Oops, I wrote all the same facts but stated them neutrally, and now it doesn't sound like a horror movie! How am I supposed to bully Rails devs into following my style?

> Here's his statement again, rewritten without the Fox News-style editorialization

And here's me applying your own technique to that sentence: "Here's an editorial rewritten without the editorialising". You then feign surprise that that doesn't leave much.

DHH's point was that the resulting graph of intermediary objects is (in his experience) overly complex - the implication being that, where possible, simple is better than complex (which, yes, is a value judgement).

DHH does have a point, but he makes it in a manner that is hyperbolic, accusatory, narrow-minded, stubborn and often rude. I find him to be a negative voice in the community and a dangerous leader. I am happy to fight fire with fire where necessary, and agree with the tone of the article linked by the OP.

This is the DHH everyone has come to expect, and enjoys reading. The entire premise of rails is based on putting negative light on configuration, this is sort of David's M.O.

The rails community has come to terms with the lack of pedantically focused programming practices that DHH embodies, however, his whole aura is one of an individual who has experienced extreme success, and therefore he's still an important community asset. He's a thought leader because he has created immense value from his opinions, and his vitriolic opinion of software architecture and abstraction has always existed. You can literally trace this back to RSpec.

I still argue OP isn't doing anything to support an opposite opinion, and is simply feeding the perspective that DHH was trying to be inflammatory instead of opinionated.

> hyperbolic, accusatory, narrow-minded, stubborn and often rude

Plus:

> fight fire with fire

Seriosly.

Sure, why not? See the "asshole vacuum" scene in HBO's Silicon Valley S01E02.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com