Alessandro Fazzi's latest activity
- 3mo ·
-
Public·
-
ruby.social
@noelrap thanks for this. It’s interesting, balanced and open minded. It’s a really polite take on a frequently poisoned topic. Looking forward to reading nexts.
My reply to the final answer: I’m more worried about renounce to duck typing. I’m more a fan of not typing interfaces and validating internal objects’ state. At least working with small teams (<10) on long lasting, always evolving, medium sized codebases.
…See more
@noelrap thanks for this. It’s interesting, balanced and open minded. It’s a really polite take on a frequently poisoned topic. Looking forward to reading nexts.
My reply to the final answer: I’m more worried about renounce to duck typing. I’m more a fan of not typing interfaces and validating internal objects’ state. At least working with small teams (<10) on long lasting, always evolving, medium sized codebases.
See less
@noelrap thanks for this. It’s interesting, balanced and open minded. It’s a really polite take on a frequently poisoned topic. Looking forward to reading nexts.
My reply to the final answer: I’m more worried about renounce to duck typing. I’m more a fan of not typing interfaces and validating internal objects’ state. At least working with small teams (<10) on long lasting, always evolving, medium sized codebases.
@noelrap thanks for this. It’s interesting, balanced and open minded. It’s a really polite take on a frequently poisoned topic. Looking forward to reading nexts.
My reply to the final answer: I’m more worried about renounce to duck typing. I’m more a fan of not typing interfaces and validating internal objects’ state. At least working with small teams (<10) on long lasting, always evolving, medium sized codebases.
- 6mo ·
-
Public·
-
ruby.social
@noelrap @pointlessone @geeksam I feel your point; and I'm asking myself that question everyday I review something related to that code! 😅 but, given your facts, evaluating an instance or re-binding a method or everything else so much dynamic it's not only strange in a dumb scenario as the one in my example, but it's harder to follow for less experienced programmers. High in the (domain) stack I'm usually forced to produce simplest design possible. `protected` sounded simpler to peers that time.
…See more
@noelrap @pointlessone @geeksam I feel your point; and I'm asking myself that question everyday I review something related to that code! 😅 but, given your facts, evaluating an instance or re-binding a method or everything else so much dynamic it's not only strange in a dumb scenario as the one in my example, but it's harder to follow for less experienced programmers. High in the (domain) stack I'm usually forced to produce simplest design possible. `protected` sounded simpler to peers that time.
See less
@noelrap @pointlessone @geeksam I feel your point; and I'm asking myself that question everyday I review something related to that code! 😅 but, given your facts, evaluating an instance or re-binding a method or everything else so much dynamic it's not only strange in a dumb scenario as the one in my example, but it's harder to follow for less experienced programmers. High in the (domain) stack I'm usually forced to produce simplest design possible. `protected` sounded simpler to peers that time.
@noelrap @pointlessone @geeksam I feel your point; and I'm asking myself that question everyday I review something related to that code! 😅 but, given your facts, evaluating an instance or re-binding a method or everything else so much dynamic it's not only strange in a dumb scenario as the one in my example, but it's harder to follow for less experienced programmers. High in the (domain) stack I'm usually forced to produce simplest design possible. `protected` sounded simpler to peers that time.
- 10mo ·
-
Public·
-
ruby.social