No, that means you falling into author’s bait where they misuse term “delete”. Refactoring is not equal to deleting. One can be result of another. But the truth is that extendable code needs to be modular to be extendable. And modular code is easy to refactor. Author couldn’t not name it “Write code that is easy to refactor, not easy to extend” coz it’s even more dumb

No, title only

See no problem as long as person genuinely likes branding, not because “flex”. For example i have Adidas Original hoodie and I like it has huge logo coz it’s iconic design of hoodie from golden era of hip-hip and break dance. I would never wear same from other brand or even “three stripes” logo from the same brand.

Right, but my initial comment was about article’s statement being wrong. Refactoring in the way you described will make code harder to delete which is bad according to the article.

I don’t understand too. Are you suggesting me to drop bunch of features in the product?

TLDR;

My current project has mostly easy to delete code and not easy to extend. Why? Coz shit was copy-pasted 50 times. It’s not fun to work in this project.

I mean, mom could be right. Maybe there’s a rule on router to block Fortnite servers after 21:00. She just doesn’t tell that she the one turning it off

He just applied Russians’ favorite soviet era saying “those who is not with us is against us”

Whatever, I’m using it regardless of what shitty commercial alternatives tried to be shoved down my throat. If Draw.io goes shit I’ll just switch to ditaa

See! It’s not only flat. Half is missing, Asia is hoax!

After closer look I can say this is great idea. Initially I thought this messes with Lit’s lifecycle bringing React’s lifecycle drawbacks but seems like it’s not. I think at some point you should get in touch with Lit devs and see if it can become part of Lit lab or even Lit itself

Is it better than React functional components in any way? I don’t see benefit over React functional components or even Lit’s class components

Library built this way because it supposed to be flexible and provide ground for complex usecases. It can only be flexible if your API works with simple abstractions which you can then compose. It’s not driven by “I need this specific utility for this specific scenario”. That would be zoo you have in JS where you have 10 ways to iterate over array and 9 of them wrong for your scenario.

Java’s OO is great because they design library with SPR principle in mind making sure there is few but good ways to do things.

BufferedReader cannot accept file name because it makes arbitrary reader… well buffered. It’s not BufferedFileReader, even that would accept something like Path or File, not string, because File can be remote file, should Reader now know all possible local and remote protocols and path formats? What else it must do?

Having it designed the way it is, allows Java to have utilities for various scenarios. Your scenario covered by standard lib too. See Files.readAllLines which, surprise-surprise, built on top of BufferedReader.

Char count is poor complexity metric. Perl is better than Python with your logic as it is more condensed.

Can anyone actually tell what exactly complicated in Java? Verbose, maybe it was at some point but I find it very straightforward and easy.

I don’t know german but it seems to be more logical to have one word for “health insurance card” since it describes one class of objects. Better than spelling 3 nouns where one partially describes what object is and other nouns act like clarification

No surprise he’s fine with make up

That was my first thought, but is that much different for say Tesla. They get tax breaks and pay as low as they can. Don’t get me wrong I not protecting China’s way, I’m rather against both. But it would be interesting to see numbers from both sides

AFAIK major contributor into low Chinese EV prices are subsidies and tax breaks for manufacturers. I know they have significant tax breaks in US. It would be interesting to see how they compare. Because if they are mostly on par this is pure corporate greed stopping them. Especially in case of Tesla. They are not overpaying workers and don’t use luxury materials

Though in reality, management will push back any unorthodox approaches/solutions/approaches as risk and additional losses on R&D.