78 lines
2.9 KiB
YAML
78 lines
2.9 KiB
YAML
|
uuid:
|
||
|
|
- value: 42e9e133-51d4-4a91-b132-413eece2278c
|
||
|
|
langcode:
|
||
|
|
- value: en
|
||
|
|
type:
|
||
|
|
- target_id: daily_email
|
||
|
|
target_type: node_type
|
||
|
|
target_uuid: 8bde1f2f-eef9-4f2d-ae9c-96921f8193d7
|
||
|
|
revision_timestamp:
|
||
|
|
- value: '2025-05-11T09:00:32+00:00'
|
||
|
|
revision_uid:
|
||
|
|
- target_type: user
|
||
|
|
target_uuid: b8966985-d4b2-42a7-a319-2e94ccfbb849
|
||
|
|
revision_log: { }
|
||
|
|
status:
|
||
|
|
- value: true
|
||
|
|
uid:
|
||
|
|
- target_type: user
|
||
|
|
target_uuid: b8966985-d4b2-42a7-a319-2e94ccfbb849
|
||
|
|
title:
|
||
|
|
- value: |
|
||
|
|
Verbosity over abstraction
|
||
|
|
created:
|
||
|
|
- value: '2023-09-06T00:00:00+00:00'
|
||
|
|
changed:
|
||
|
|
- value: '2025-05-11T09:00:32+00:00'
|
||
|
|
promote:
|
||
|
|
- value: false
|
||
|
|
sticky:
|
||
|
|
- value: false
|
||
|
|
default_langcode:
|
||
|
|
- value: true
|
||
|
|
revision_translation_affected:
|
||
|
|
- value: true
|
||
|
|
path:
|
||
|
|
- alias: /daily/2023/09/06/verbosity-over-abstraction
|
||
|
|
langcode: en
|
||
|
|
body:
|
||
|
|
- value: |
|
||
|
|
<p>Recently, a steamer said they "prefer verbosity over abstraction/confusion".</p>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<p>In that scenario, it was regarding the name of a microservice they were creating. It was long and verbose, but it described what it did.</p>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<p>It was clear to anyone working on that project what that service did, now and in the future.</p>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<p>I prefer this to shorter, less-descriptive names.</p>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<p>I hardly ever create a variable called <code>$x</code>, <code>$k</code> or <code>$v</code>. I only would if it was clear what it meant within its context.</p>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<p>I like to write descriptive names for test methods that explain what the test is doing. Even if I start with a vague name, I'll refactor it to make it more specific and clearer.</p>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<p>I prefer not to use PHP functions like <code>compact</code> and to write it out and avoid the abstraction and any confusion it could cause.</p>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<p>I prefer code to be verbose, descriptive and easy to read, understand and change.</p>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
format: full_html
|
||
|
|
processed: |
|
||
|
|
<p>Recently, a steamer said they "prefer verbosity over abstraction/confusion".</p>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<p>In that scenario, it was regarding the name of a microservice they were creating. It was long and verbose, but it described what it did.</p>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<p>It was clear to anyone working on that project what that service did, now and in the future.</p>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<p>I prefer this to shorter, less-descriptive names.</p>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<p>I hardly ever create a variable called <code>$x</code>, <code>$k</code> or <code>$v</code>. I only would if it was clear what it meant within its context.</p>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<p>I like to write descriptive names for test methods that explain what the test is doing. Even if I start with a vague name, I'll refactor it to make it more specific and clearer.</p>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<p>I prefer not to use PHP functions like <code>compact</code> and to write it out and avoid the abstraction and any confusion it could cause.</p>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<p>I prefer code to be verbose, descriptive and easy to read, understand and change.</p>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
summary: null
|
||
|
|
field_daily_email_cta: { }
|