> You will be asked to write a documentation for some little code you wrote. You will carry out tests. You will argue with your colleagues and supervisor on every decision you make.
You misquoted in order to leave out the fact that the documentation is 50 pages, and some of the tests are useless, and arguing with colleagues is not always productive.
I removed the obvious exxagerations. of course nobody ask you 50 pages, so why is it relevant for the discussion? and who decides for how much documentation is needed anyway? the producer, or who pays for it?
also, you don't know which tests are and arent useless beforehand. code coverage may not be the perfect metric, but correctness is is semi-decidable anyway, so if one claims before hand that some coverage test is useless, he's most likely being lazy or drown in his self importance.
and arguing technical decision is always productive, so much that rubbe ducking is an actual methodology becuse even arguing alone is better than go head down with aggressive randomness.
Sorry but you are wrong. Useless documentation, useless tests and useless arguing definitely exist, period, and they are tautologically bad. Maybe you haven't had the experience of working in such an environment where those things happen, but claiming they don't exist and twisting someone's words is absurd. Also, those wild uncharitable and provocative interpretations are also against the HN guidelines.
I'm claiming they're not universally bad, and that the claim they're universally bad is absurd - if unsure about the interpretation, please do refer to the initial post - you might want to start applying that charitable interpretation thing.
The author himself didn't claim they're universally bad, nor did anyone else. The only "claim" for that is in your original post, where you misquoted the author on purpose! You can't completely twist someone else's words and then use that as an argument. And I don't see how referring to a post where you're twisting someone's words has anything to do with charitable interpretations.
If you think obvious exaggeration are foundational to the argument instead of a figure of speech nothing further is to be gained here.
Besides I've provided reasoning for the elision and that went completely unaddressed, probably because assigning some absolutism to the argument that wasn't there and dragging me to court on trumped charges seemed easier
The problem is that the removal of what you call "obvious exaggeration" and "figure of speech" completely changes the meaning of the phrase and transforms the author's position from reasonable to unreasonable.
That's called a strawman. Yeah, it's very easy to do and very convenient to knock out, and I hope you had fun doing so, but you didn't really address the author's real position here, as much as you insist that you just removed "figure of speech".
About the "dragging me to court on trumped charges" part, oh, the irony. That's exactly what YOU are doing. :)
I’m always up for a productive discussion, but there are two paragraphs of text before the one you’re childishly replying to, which you dishonestly chose to ignore in order to make a childish personal attack. Just like you chose to ignore the qualifiers written in the article in your original post. Sorry, but you don't get to cry foul and say you're being "dragged to court" when you're caught misquoting and then misrepresenting someone's position with a strawman. Either be honest or accept someone calling you out.
If you're really asking for an arguments: the fact you had to edit the quote should be enough clue that the original statement wasn't as clear cut as you're portraying. The fact people disagreed with you (with downvotes or comments) should also point to that. Maybe take a second to consider that you were uncharitable to the author and they're not as stupid and as extremist as you're painting them.
Once again you chose to selectively ignore most of the message and edit it to focus on a part you can use to paint me in the worse possible light. Similar to how you did with your original post. Your only tactic in this discussion is to selectively quote people to make them look worse. You are indeed acting like a child in this discussion.
And, no: that’s not a personal attack, as I’m talking about your acts, not yourself.
Once again I’m up for any discussion, but that won’t matter as you ignore anything that can’t be used to make your interlocutor look stupid. You sir haven’t argued in good faith. You began this whole thing with a bad faith misquote, and when you couldn’t do it anymore you began to cry foul, while at the same time criticizing me for doing so. And that’s the only thing you’ve done so far: acting in bad faith.
really? beacuse it appears from the last six or so messages you're only interested in dissecting words, ignoring whatever meaning is therein contained, and you're only available to debate the single topic that you picked, which today appears to be wether making summaries is allowed or not while presenting an argument, and are prepared to just diss and dismiss anything unless it falls exactly in your extremely narrow debate window.
imagine thinking this is bad, unironically.