Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

215Re: [extremeperl] Re: I almost had a heart attack: you call that refactoring???

Expand Messages
  • Curtis Poe
    Apr 2, 2005
      On Apr 2, 2005, at 9:34 AM, Tom Vilot wrote:

      > > Against: 2 (Jim, Terrence)
      > > For: 4 (Rob, Rob, Chris, Johan)
      > five, actually. Count me in the 'for' list.

      May as well make it six. I used to think the "never duplicate" rule
      was good and sometimes the second time I do something I refactor on the
      spot, but I've been bitten too many times by a quick refactoring only
      to realize I didn't have a full grasp of what needed to be refactored.
      3 or more times is a good rule of thumb.

      There's also a rather subtle problem that exists when you have code
      that is identical but represents different rules that may diverge in
      the future. My caffeine-deprived brain can't think of an example right

      And a little point that I like to toss out that (if I may be less than
      humble) more people should pay attention to: when someone uses
      all-encompassing terms like "never" and "always", look for a logical
      flaw. There's often one lurking somewhere nearby. Those terms smack
      of dogmatism and dogmatism means someone's stopped thinking about
      something (though it doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong.)


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 17 messages in this topic