:'-( i really don't want to get into another one of these "what exactly does a term mean and does it apply absolutely and completely in this scenario". I'm making it a rule from now on that I'm only going to subject myself to them when alcohol is available.
Hows about, for now, you define it in a way that works for you, I'll define it in a way that works for me, we agree to agree on most of the details and agree to differ some of the details. Next time you're in Dublin give me a call, we can have a pint or ten, sit down as men do and discuss important things (like the nature of DRYness). On Jan 15, 8:22 pm, Sam Smoot <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jan 15, 1:27 pm, heda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > =begin semi-counter rant > > > dry-ness to me is the ability to express a concept which is common > > between various parts via a single point, in some cases that means a > > constant, in many other its does not > > > i agree its not about minimizing keystrokes, i agree it is about > > maintaining clarity of code and improving the concesity of conceptual > > expression > > > =end > > :-) > > I think you undermine your argument with your last statement though. > What concept are you trying to express? What conceptual (and > importantly, Business Domain) allegiance do first_name, last_name and > minimum fields share? > > When "The Pragmatic Programmer" came out, C, Java and Visual Basic > dominated. Java without closures. Visual Basic with very rudimentary > support for inheritance or classes. Only C macros could come close to > the sort of constructs now commonly presented in Ruby as measures to > ensure DRYness. > > I think it's a lot easier to frame the definition in the context of > it's time: A developer using Java servlets or an ASP developer, and > what sorts of things they might have been doing that prompted the > advice. > > It really comes down to this: Without a unifying concept of the > knowledge you're trying to canonically represent, you can't claim > DRYness. A default of 50 characters for both a first_name and a > last_name is not domain knowledge. Odds are, as the domain is refined > it's seems likely the with_options helper would need to be removed > down the line so each piece of knowledge can be represented > accurately. > > Enough with my hijacking. ;-) But yeah, I don't have much community > experience outside of Ruby these days, but it's my impression the > repurposing of "DRY" is a Rails influenced concept, and it's > unfortunate that the valuable Domain Knowledge discussion seems mostly > lost in the superficial and low-value (as far as productivity, > maintainability, business-value) concept of beauty over Design. > > It's a distraction that encourages a race-to-the-bottom that > emphasizes style over substance; where Domain Driven Design (DDD, the > first/true one, not the silly development methodology discussion aka > "d3") is an after-thought. It's a road leads to Ruby as the next big > Cold Fusion instead of the next big Java (IMO). > > -Sam > > PS: Yeah... uh... sorry for the de-rail. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DataMapper" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/datamapper?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
