From: Dumaiu <Dymaio@...>
Date: 2007-12-10T02:55:02+09:00
Subject: Re: How much would variable declarations in Ruby make you wince?

On Dec 9, 12:07 pm, Bill Kelly <bi...@cts.com> wrote:
> From: "Dumaiu" <Dym...@gmail.com>
>
> > This sounds like Trans's objection.  But it's a post facto solution.
> > Relentlessly refactoring and testing during development could fall
> > into the 'premature optimization' category.
>
> No.  Optimizing almost invariably makes code more obscure and more
> complex.  Thus the reason to do as little optimization as possible,
> as late in the project as possible.
>
> The drivers for refactoring are completely opposite from those of
> optimization.
>
> The point of refactoring is to improve and simplify the design of
> existing code.  Refactoring tends to become more difficult the longer
> it is put off, and is more risky in the absence of good test
> coverage.
>
> As such, it is ideal if refactoring can become a straightforward daily
> occurrence; and a comprehensive test suite helps make this possible.
> Some kinds of applications are harder to test than others, but it's
> almost always worth it to find a way to write automated tests.
>
> In any case, comparing frequent refactoring to premature optimization
> is just wrong. . . .
>
> Regards,
>
> Bill

	Perhaps I should avoid buzzwords.  I admit that, having never
actually looked 'optimization' up, I may define it more loosely than
you.  I didn't mean optimization for performance but for elegance.  Ça
ne se dit pas?  The purpose of refactoring is to improve code by
increasing elegance, unless I seriously misunderstand.  My own
tendency is to overthink it and try to reevaluate a design after every
single change.  I think this is another case where balance is best.
If you have achieved such a balance with your "cycles,"
congratulations.  I apologize if I offended you.

	-Jonathan