FYI there's a fully playable unofficial port for Jak 1 and 2, and they're working on the 3rd one: https://opengoal.dev/
dandi8
joined 2 years ago
Pegasus?
I feel like I'd believe it if the headline was about John McAfee.
In my experience LLMs do absolutely terribly with writing unit tests.
IMO this perspective that we're all just "reimplementing basic CRUD" applications is the reason why so many software projects fail.
Good abstractions are important for the code to be readable. An AbstractEventHandlerManager is probably not a good abstraction.
The original commenter said that their code was "generic with lot of interfaces and polymorphism" - it sounds like they chose abstractions which hindered maintainability and readability.
Is it possible that you just chose the wrong abstractions?
I do, and whether I have a good time depends on whether they have written their code well, of which the book's suggestions are only one metric.
How do abstractions help with that? Can you tell, from the symptoms, which "level of abstraction" contains the bug? Or do you need to read through all six (or however many) "levels", across multiple modules and functions, to find the error?
I usually start from the lowest abstraction, where the stack trace points me and don't need to look at the rest, because my code is written well.
It's only as incomprehensible as you make it.
If there are 6 subfunctions, that means there's 6 levels of abstraction (assuming the method extraction was not done blindly), which further suggests that maybe they should actually be part of a different class (or classes). Why would you be interested in 6 levels of abstraction at once?
But we're arguing hypotheticals here. Of course you can make the method implementations a complete mess, the book cannot guarantee that the person applying the principles used their brain, as well.
Not sure the son would see it the same way...