100 lines
No EOL
4 KiB
JSON
100 lines
No EOL
4 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"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\n"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"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": "\n <p>Recently, a steamer said they \"prefer verbosity over abstraction\/confusion\".<\/p>\n\n<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>\n\n<p>It was clear to anyone working on that project what that service did, now and in the future.<\/p>\n\n<p>I prefer this to shorter, less-descriptive names.<\/p>\n\n<p>I hardly ever create a variable called <code>$x<\/code>, <code>$k<\/code> or <code>$v<\/code>. I only would if it was clear what it meant within its context.<\/p>\n\n<p>I like to write descriptive names for test methods that explain what the test is doing. Even if I start with a vague name, I'll refactor it to make it more specific and clearer.<\/p>\n\n<p>I prefer not to use PHP functions like <code>compact<\/code> and to write it out and avoid the abstraction and any confusion it could cause.<\/p>\n\n<p>I prefer code to be verbose, descriptive and easy to read, understand and change.<\/p>\n\n ",
|
|
"format": "full_html",
|
|
"processed": "\n <p>Recently, a steamer said they \"prefer verbosity over abstraction\/confusion\".<\/p>\n\n<p>In that scenario, it was regarding the name of a microservice they were creating. It was long and verbose, but it described what it did.<\/p>\n\n<p>It was clear to anyone working on that project what that service did, now and in the future.<\/p>\n\n<p>I prefer this to shorter, less-descriptive names.<\/p>\n\n<p>I hardly ever create a variable called <code>$x<\/code>, <code>$k<\/code> or <code>$v<\/code>. I only would if it was clear what it meant within its context.<\/p>\n\n<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>\n\n<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>\n\n<p>I prefer code to be verbose, descriptive and easy to read, understand and change.<\/p>\n\n ",
|
|
"summary": null
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"feeds_item": [
|
|
{
|
|
"imported": "1970-01-01T00:32:50+00:00",
|
|
"guid": null,
|
|
"hash": "9d832e6a96400a2022d179422d39c66a",
|
|
"target_type": "feeds_feed",
|
|
"target_uuid": "90c85284-7ca8-4074-9178-97ff8384fe76"
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
} |