Proto-thoughts on “You aren't gonna need it” back before Extreme Programming hit the mainstream

Here's one of the rants I handwrote about a decade ago [1]. I don't know … I think I may have lost my mind back then. There were a few bits I couldn't make out—I tended to be a bit lazy in the handwriting department, and I suspect I inherited my Mom's inability to write legibly.

## The Lego™ Theory of Programming

Okay, I should point out that I have no idea what the following has to with The Lego™ Theory of Programming [2]. It's not even close to what I understand The Lego™ Theory of Programming is today, and I have to question what I was thinking back then.

Hmm … I seem to be fisking [3] myself here. But oh well, I'm having fun with this, and I can always claim to have changed my mind in the presence of more and better information.

Onwards …

This goes beyond the Theory of Software Reliability. Software Reliability simply states that software should be written with reuse in mind. This leads to the following Theorem:

Um, not quite. “Software Reliability” has nothing to do with “software reuse” and everything to do with “not crashing and losing a hours of work, or maybe a patient or two [4] (or twenty-one).”

So, the names are bad. But not necessarily the theory itself.

> > The more general the subroutine, the slower it is, the larger it is.
>
Proof:
> > > >
> ```
> int a;
> int b;
> int c;
>
> c = a + b;
>
> ```
>
> > > >
> ```
> anon a;
> anon b;
> anon c;
>
> c = a + b;
>
> if (typeof(a) == int && typeof(b) == int)
> c = intplus(a,b);
> else if (typeof(a) == string && typeof(b) == string)
> c = strcat(a,b);
>
> ```
>
The more general the code, the more code is required to isolate the needed cases.
Proof of b)…> larger: more code is required to isolate the particular case, or to extract the particular result from the general case.
Proof of [GD?] ([Anon?] B)
Code that isn't there executes faster than code that is executed. Duh!

I'm not sure if I would accept that as “proof” or not, although it does get the point across. And generally speaking, I'm not a fan of generalized code not because it bloats code, but because it complicates the code unnecessarily. And I'm not the only one who feels that way [5] (link via flutterby [6]).

I should probably expand my thoughts on this …

[1] /boston/2008/06/29.2

[2] /boston/2007/06/13.2

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking

[4] http://www.technewsworld.com/story/33398.html

[5] http://phillarson.blogspot.com/2008/06/flexibility-is-bad-design.html

[6] http://www.flutterby.com/archives/comments/11264.html

Gemini Mention this post

Contact the author