Despite the obvious levity, this is actually serious. It was made by why the lucky stiff, a pretty prominent member of Ruby community, back in the day. This, however, was part of his mysterious burnout manifesto, for lack of better term. He really really bloody needed a break.
“programming is rather thankless. u see your works become replaced by superior ones in a year. unable to run at all in a few more.”
You must log in or register to comment.
Where does maintaining a 25MB perl script fall into.
My condolences
EOL
💀
I think that’s larger than my kernel binary.
into depression i guess
Documentation should be larger than code.
Tests as well.
Tests as well.
In most programming languages, yes.
In Ruby? …eeeeeeeehhhhhhhhh.
Programming, not Ruby.
Where does “Suddenly realizing why they call it DLL hell” fall on the scale?
Between “One too many nulls” and “The tests are larger . . .” in the beginning, then moving up one notch for each day you’ve been wrestling with it.
the tests are now larger than the thing itself
The purpose of the code is to make the tests pass.
The purpose of code is to solve a problem but don’t tell that to the newbies or they reduce the PHP codebase you spend full time managing to 10% that in Rust and take your job.
I miss why… he was what everyone really needed, and the industry destroyed him. I haven’t seen anyone like him since.
50,000? thems rookie numbers.
the tests are now larger than the thing itself
Is such a weird complaint. You should aim for your codebase to be as small, simple and readable as possible, while your tests should be a specification that guarantees behavior is consistent between refactors. When you add behavior, you add tests, when you remove a behavior, you delete tests.
The size of either is independent of eachother. Small code bases that provide lots of features should be simple to read, but with a lot of tests.
I always tought that it’s a norm to have more code in tests than in tested program
