this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2023
120 points (97.6% liked)

Programming

17377 readers
237 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
snowe@programming.dev
Ategon@programming.dev
MaungaHikoi@lemmy.nz
120
You might as well timestamp it (changelog.com)
submitted 1 year ago by jerodsanto@programming.dev to c/programming@programming.dev
21 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rmam@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Good point. However, approaching this problem from “YAGNI” point of view is a bit misleading, I think. If you are not going to need the timestamp, you shouldn’t add it to your code base.

I don't agree it was a good point. It sounds like the blog author missed a requirement a few times, and after getting repeatedly burned in the requirements gathering stage he now overcompensates previous failing with I'll advised usages of timestamps instead of booleans.

YAGNI is always true. Always. The author's point, even when timestamps end up being required, are moot.

Also, if state changes are required them you don't tack on a timestamp to a row. You instead track events, including switching stuff on and off.

I feel this blog post is bad advise fueled by trauma.