On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: > I (finally) read this and the thread that went on at the time, and I > don't see any point in all of this, besides a vage plea to encourage > tests, and a slightly more concrete (but impractical) call for stress > tests.
I think laying down general philosophy is useful. It sets a tone. However, I agree with most of your other points though I'm less concerned about the ownership of code side, probably 'cause I don't have to deal with everyday. > * "\"Primum non nocere\"" -- after looking this up (bad for such a > document), I strongly disagree with it. IIUC, it reads as "if it > works, don't mess with it" Idiomatically that would be "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". I too strongly disagree with this. > * Yet another huge ommision from such a document is style. This comes > in several flavors: Yes. This is one of the most important aspect IMO. Consistent style makes it easy for anyone to navigate the code base. We have evolved a house style at Untyped and it is useful. N. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
