Category talk:Programming rules of thumb
 | This category was nominated for merging to Category:Programming principles on 15 August 2014. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This soft redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Merge outcome
[edit]From the above-archived merge discussion:
- Oppose Had to give the quite a bit of thought - if we take "principle" to a fundamental truth or foundation, then rules of thumb inherently do not fit well within that structure. A rule of thumb is knowingly incorrect at times and is disregarded when its relevance is questionable. Principles are omni-relevant. For example, Rule of three (computer programming) is just a suggested good practice which can be disregarded quite easily, whereas Principle of least astonishment is a fundamental principle of programming which if disregarded can seriously affect the outcome. I'm not opposed to thinking of a more inclusive rename if it's a good one. SFB 07:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - rules of thumb are about culture and tradition within professional practice, while principles are grounded on computer science and research. It's true that there's a grey line between them that can make them hard to classify, but that doesn't make them the same concept. Diego (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I feel like the line is not only grey; it's subjective. I could certainly argue that principle of least astonishment isn't "omni-relevant" and in some circumstances should be ignored in favor of other factors. "You aren't gonna need it" isn't "proven" by "computer science and research"; the article itself says: "The efficacy of YAGNI, even when considered in combination with the supporting practices, is controversial." These rules are fuzzy; it's not always possible to say what changes they are proposed, because you can apply the same rule in different ways depending on how you look at the problem.
At best, these are two very closely related subtypes of the same concept, and at worst, I think they are actually all one group with editors arbitrarily taking positions whether they are in subgroup A or B. In either case, I don't think it helps readers to have two lists of recommendations for programming guidelines. I hope we reconsider this merge. -- Beland (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)