Not many industries can afford refactoring of the code is not supposed to be changed - additional (unexpected) regression testing costs, risk of downtime, etc. You learn that if it works and is in production - don't touch it.
Which is greater? The cost of refactoring or the cost of not refactoring? If the consequence of not refactoring is having to deploy twice as many services and libraries every time you add a feature... that sounds pretty risky to me over time.
This is great )) maybe do random templates similar to newspapers (like photo on the left, photo on the right, one block full width, then 3 columns, etc).
You can be right but quite often it helps keeping focus on the forrest rather then getting lost in the trees - at least for me. Boilerplate steals a lot of attention, focus and can just be mentally exhausting.
Can someone explain these complaints about boilerplate to me? What are y’all doing where boilerplate is the majority of your code? Am I the only one mostly writing concise business logic where most lines are important in one way or another?
Similar approach, but I also go a step further with some basic manual architecture/high level contract/stubs setups, just to keep it consistent with other systems (and easier reading as well).
I've been doing the same thing lately and I definitely feel like stubbing out the high level architecture at the beginning makes a difference. The codebase I'm in now has very particular ways of doing things and claude doesn't always pick that up.
Style can be as important as substance.
I still do a lot of back and forth about the plan - have it written to a file. Read through the file, make changes by hand and have claude read my changes and on and on. But starting with the basic architecture there's less ambiguity.
You just learn how to type with your toes. It is an easy skill to master and then comes handy when you drive, or sit at important meetings (you can just keep coding away) and noone's the wiser.
reply