Nov 14, 2026, 10:16 PMAnd doing the "make this work for a generalizable N things" refactor is easier when going directly from 1 to N than it is when you're going from 3 things to N things
- Nov 14, 2026, 10:16 PM
Replies
Glyphglyph@mastodon.socialNov 14, 2026, 10:19 PM@mcc oh I've heard this before. it is the "3 body problem" right
Brad Martinbmartin427@techhub.socialNov 14, 2026, 10:26 PM@mcc not following this part. I've worked in a number of codebases that introduced N=1 abstractions early on that never really got expanded on, which become a big pain to maintain over time because its never clear exactly *what* you're trying to abstract without multiple concrete examples
- Nov 14, 2026, 10:27 PM
@bmartin427 How about this: It's easier to conceptualize the abstraction when you have N=3, but it's easier to perform the code-level refactor when you have N=1, and that means no matter what the value of N is when you do the change someone will be unhappy
Tim Ward ⭐🇪🇺🔶 #FBPETimWardCam@c.imNov 14, 2026, 10:43 PM@mcc @bmartin427 I usually wait for N=3. I get unhappy with premature generalisation which results in large complex frameworks, holding up shipping for months, for something where ... in actual real life N never ends up getting to be more than 1.
normy foxyoreosfoxyoreos@mastodon.socialNov 15, 2026, 12:16 AM@mcc @bmartin427 this I agree with. I generally am cautious about early abstractions because I've worked on a lot of codebases with programmers who were *heavily* invested into them, and pushed for them to the point where they became leaky and fragile. I think my biases tend to lead towards more readable and self documenting code.
HOWEVER, they indisputably make me spend more time refactoring and make some of my refactors more involved.