> On Sep 30, 2018, at 23:41, Alan Thompson <clooj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It is easy to overdo it when trying to predict future needs. I always (now) > do the minimal solution, with the expectation that it *may* evolve in the > future.
Normally I'd agree: YAGNI is great for functionality that can be added without breaking clients (or when you control all the clients). But public APIs seem like the place to be forward-thinking, at least for potential breaking changes such as switching to namespaced keywords. > Since the parts that do need change (say 5% ?) are usually not the ones I > would have predicted, I am usually very glad I didn't over-engineer the API > in advance. W.r.t. "over-engineer", tongue-in-cheek: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XewVicFzRxw&t=2m44s -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
