The author lays out an overly idealistic approach to software development that has blinders to all other metrics but the speed of feature development.
> For ten years, I’ve been trying to make the case for a higher pace of software development.
I suppose an obsession would be a good explanation for the blinders.
> In Rails, that mostly means testing at the controller level only
FWIW, controller testing in rails is frowned upon and has been abstracted to a separate library. The recommend way is to combine unit tests with fullstack feature specs.
> Now, several years later, I count 183 interactors. That’s a pretty clear indication that refactoring over time worked for us.
News to me that the number of interactors reflects the success of refactoring in a codebase.
> Now that we’ve gone remote, those notifications are basically the only way to show people that you’re at your desk.
Great leadership there. You could also make them keep their webcams on so you can literally watch them.
It's not all bad... but it's also nothing new.
Overall, i'll agree dev speed matters, but "zero tolerance for slow-pace" is a toxic motto to try and cement because tradeoffs are all about...tradeoffs. And there are a number of ideas the author raises that are... disagreeable, and particularly of concern coming from a leadership position.
Author here. I think you're picking a fight just to pick a fight.
For example:
> News to me that the number of interactors reflects the success of refactoring in a codebase.
In the context of the article, that was given as a proof of refactor as you go. The team chose a direction that they wanted to refactor towards. The 183 interactors are proof that they made significant progress in that direction without having to do any sort of full stops.
I'm disagreeing with the article you wrote and the way you wrote it. It read of fluff and arrogance, and I tried to respond to the points I found most objectionable; I'll be honest there were more. But nobody wants to read all that.
If my feedback was not constructive enough for you to improve your writing off of, I apologize. While I found what you wrote to be disagreeable, idealistic and in some cases downright toxic, it's only my perspective of the writing.
Why must my opinions be disregarded as picking a fight, or as a misread? You appear more intent to dismiss than understand. I've given my honest reaction to the article - that's the best I can do.
> For ten years, I’ve been trying to make the case for a higher pace of software development.
I suppose an obsession would be a good explanation for the blinders.
> In Rails, that mostly means testing at the controller level only
FWIW, controller testing in rails is frowned upon and has been abstracted to a separate library. The recommend way is to combine unit tests with fullstack feature specs.
> Now, several years later, I count 183 interactors. That’s a pretty clear indication that refactoring over time worked for us.
News to me that the number of interactors reflects the success of refactoring in a codebase.
> Now that we’ve gone remote, those notifications are basically the only way to show people that you’re at your desk.
Great leadership there. You could also make them keep their webcams on so you can literally watch them.
It's not all bad... but it's also nothing new.
Overall, i'll agree dev speed matters, but "zero tolerance for slow-pace" is a toxic motto to try and cement because tradeoffs are all about...tradeoffs. And there are a number of ideas the author raises that are... disagreeable, and particularly of concern coming from a leadership position.