I don’t understand, if you’ve got easy to delete copy-pasted code, then delete it. It’ll be a nice and cathartic exercise.

But sounds like what you’re really talking about is code that isn’t easy to delete.

IMO folding to hide is about equivalent to moving all contents to another file/private function:

def bad_function(args):
    return _hide_elsewhere(args)

i.e. does nothing. Real solution to pyramids of doom is to fix the code.

That’s changing the goal posts to “not static”

Sounds easy to simplify:

Use one of: constructor A(d), function a(d), or method d.a() to construct A’s.

B and C never change, so I invoke YAGNI and hardcode them in this one and only place, abstracting them away entirely.

No factories, no dependency injection frameworks.

IMO factory functions are totally fine – I hesitate to even give them a special name b/c functions that can return an object are not special.

However I think good use cases for Factory classes (and long-lived stateful instances of) are scarce, often being better served using other constructs.

But would you pay for it?

My employer’s paying for my access, and I only find it a bit useful here and there

Maybe my company gets a great discount or something, but if they would pay me the subscription cost to give up Copilot, I wouldn’t miss it

You can reference envs from the host in docker compose, so code it in instead of manually passing tribal knowledge in: https://stackoverflow.com/a/73826410

Simpler to keep everything in one compose file if you can, under a test service that doesn’t build unless explicitly named

Un-weird that env var and use the normal, boring feature of defining environment under your test service

I’ve often been able to alias drun='docker compose run --rm --build' and simplify down to:

drun test

Should be able to encode all those wayward args into docker-compose.yml or Dockerfile and only use vanilla docker commands – that’s the whole point of containerization

One of the best tutorials on really “grokking” git concepts, and it’s online and interactive: https://learngitbranching.js.org

For programming, start with buildings things for yourself. Be practical, start small, and iterate, regardless if you consider the previous iteration was a success or failure. I’ve heard good things about https://automatetheboringstuff.com/ (in Python) in this regard.

Can address it by writing code that doesn’t depend much on indentation, which also makes code more linear and easier to follow.

Idgi – is it saying that every game is either named “X” or “Y’s X”?

wanted to add something to the end of a for-loop, but had too little indentation

To address this, I prefer reducing length & depth of nested code, so the for/while is rarely ever not visible along with everything inside it. Others have success with editors that draw indentation lines.

opening up new/anonymous scopes

I occasionally use Python nested functions for this purpose

I find it’s possible to operate Python as a statically typed language if you wanted, though it takes some setup with external tooling. It wasn’t hard, but had to set up pyright, editor integration, configuration to type check strictly and along with tests, and CI.

I even find the type system to be far more powerful than how I remembered Java’s to be (though I’m not familiar with the newest Java versions).

All methods? Of course not. Just methods like these.

I really dislike code like that. Code like that tends to lie about what it says it does and have non-explicit interactions/dependencies.

The only thing I can really be certain from that is:

  doAnything();
  if(doAnything2()) {
    doAnything3();
  }

I.e. almost nothing at all because the abstractions aren’t useful.

I agree with the author overall, and I think it can be more straightforwardly stated. IMO it’s the idea that wrong abstractions are even worse than other ills like duplication or god classes/modules. It’s also reminiscent of “modules should be deep”.

I prefer that, though (it’s in my calendar, but I don’t have to accept). I really can’t stand Outlook’s email-based calendar workflow.

That’s only because the former already implies much of the latter, so they don’t need to repeat it

If it takes 1+ hours of work to remove a feature flag branch in an area of code, I wouldn’t trust the correctness of anything the AI writes and would be super skeptical about anything the humans had written.