When comparing the Kobe code base to the Kobe documentation, I am starting to get a sinking feeling. The documentation is really nice, the code is anything but.
When you put out guidance, the documentation is nice, but it is the code that people are going to look it, learn and try to emulate. And when you put out something that doesn’t meet basic parameters for good software, that is a huge problem.
With Oxite, Microsoft had the excuse of it being slipped out without anyone noticing. This time it is official, it has passed the proper review procedure, and is explicitly marketed as “intended to guide you with the planning, architecting, and implementing of Web 2.0 applications and services.”
Sorry, that is entirely unacceptable.
Putting something like that out there as guidance is actively doing harm to the community as a whole. It means that people who would look at that and try to use what they see there are going to get bitten by bad practices, bad architecture and overly complex and redundant approaches.
I submit that high level review of such guidance packages is absolutely not sufficient. You have to get people to do a full review cycle of that, which include the code, the documentation, the reasoning and anything else that is going out there.