Yeah that’s a good point. It’s telling that inheritance is by design difficult to change unless you follow very specific rules of good OO design patterns.

I guess it’s easy to write bad code in any programming paradkgm but inheritance makes it easy to screw up.

Most of us have bad memories of over-complex hierarchies we regret seeing, but this is probably due to the dominance of OOP in recent decades.

This sentence here is why inheritance gets a bad reputation, rightly or wrongly. Inheritance sounds intuitive when you’re inheriting Vehicle in your Bicycle class, but it falls apart when dealing with more abstract ideas. Thus, it’s not immediately clear when and why you should use inheritance, and it soon becomes a tangled mess.

Thus, OO programs can easily fall into a trap of organizing code into false hierarchies. And those hierarchies may not make sense from developer to developer who is reading the code.

I’m not a fan of OO programming, but I do think it can occasionally be a useful tool.

If the work I’m doing is on a feature branch on remote or locally, why does it matter to the rest of the team? My integration steps can be done on a server instead of locally. TBD forces teams to collaborate synchronously since changes are pushed straight to trunk. Rebase or squashes are irrelevant here.

Another poster put it great: TBD is trying to solve a culture problem. Feature branches and pull requests into main is much more flexible. The only time TBD make sense is for small teams - like 2 or maybe 3. And even at 2, I’d much rather create feature branches that merge into main.

Precisely. In practice, trunk based development just means your branch is local instead of on remote.

Ehhh, I don’t quite agree with this. I’ve done the same thing where I used a timestamp field to replace a boolean. However, they are technically not the same thing. In databases, boolean fields can be nullable so you actually have 3-valued boolean logic: true, false, and null. You can technically only replace a non-nullable field to a timestamp column because you are treating null in timestamp as false.

Two examples:

1. A table of generated documents for employees to sign. There’s a field where they need to agree to something, but it’s optional. You want to differentiate between employees who agreed, employees who disagreed, and employees who have yet to agree. You can’t change the column from is_agreed to agreed_at.

2. Adding a boolean column to an existing table. These columns need to either default to an value (which is fair) or be nullable.

I think it’s good advice to keep your options open and look around to see if there’s any good opportunities every year. It’s good to keep your ear to the ground, even if it’s just networking or browsing through openings and talking to recruiters. But no, you don’t have to change jobs every X number of years.

Nothing wrong with recommending a Mac. I’m not a Mac guy myself but I am pretty productive with one.

For our batch workflows, we do have downtime on deploys. It’s by design because 0 downtime doesn’t add any value. Downtime is usually 5 to 10 minutes. For our services, we rely on lambdas or kubernetes rolling deployments so no downtime.

Any specific examples? I never got that impression, but maybe I’m being naive.