Ayende @ Rahien

Ayende Rahien commented on Zero Friction and why Defaults Matters

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:03:02 GMT

Andrey, 1/ That is why we have the Auto Mocking Container. An extension to Windsor that does just that. 2/ container.ResolveAll() have both generic and non generic implementations. 3/ That is something that you can write yourself in about half an hour.

Andrey Shchekin commented on Zero Friction and why Defaults Matters

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:07:24 GMT

This is the main problem I have with Castle IoC -- bad support for things I consider to be a baseline. These are: 1. An easy way to resolve all dependencies as mocks (and API to do it manually is quite cryptic, though I won over it). 2. An IEnumerable/List/T[] resolution with logic same as ResolveServices (same API, and also I ended up calling ResolveServices<> from non-generic code -- no fun at all) 3. An easily discoverable version of BatchRegistrationFacility that can find internal classes (at least that's easy with Linq). This also demonstrates that such baseline requirements are indeed subjective, since Castle guys haven't implemented them yet (and I consider lists requirement essential).

Ruurd commented on Zero Friction and why Defaults Matters

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 06:39:39 GMT

hehe, and there you have a good reason indeed. It's ridiculous ;-(

Ayende Rahien commented on Zero Friction and why Defaults Matters

Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:59:14 GMT

Oh, yeah. That one was PITA.

Ted Elliott commented on Zero Friction and why Defaults Matters

Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:53:40 GMT

MSBuild's building its filesets at startup is what caused me to switch to Nant. Having to go through some awkward syntax to do something as simple as moving some files that you generated during the build into a zip file is ridiculous and just doesn't make any sense. Its easy in Nant.

Ruurd commented on Zero Friction and why Defaults Matters

Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:14:12 GMT

It's quite possible that NAnt did not come with the possibility to query for the framework (maybe it did, but that's besides the point: I am sure there are other examples). Someone has build it for NAnt, as you had the opportunity to do for MSBuild at this point. You choose not to do so, which is understandable, but someone did do that for NAnt. It seems unfair to judge a young product based on the amount of community contributions. However, it is fair to chose one product over another because of community contributions. But just be clear about it.

jdn commented on Zero Friction and why Defaults Matters

Mon, 25 Feb 2008 01:35:40 GMT

Of course you are, that isn't in question, but design issues are rarely if ever one-sided, one answer fits all issues, so it isn't an either-or proposition. This isn't a comment about you in particular, but something I've noticed a lot in the alt.net mailing lists, the lack of understanding here. It's hard to come up with good defaults in design, especially when design is literally design (by which I mean UI). I think it is also probably true in code.

Ayende Rahien commented on Zero Friction and why Defaults Matters

Mon, 25 Feb 2008 01:26:37 GMT

Jdn, I do believe that I am capable of distinguishing between personal preferences and design issues. Where appropriate, I try to make that clear. That said, unless there are some _really good_ reasons for those defaults, they get the same treatment. A lot of what I would consider personal preference is part and parcel of the way I am working. And that is damn important.

jdn commented on Zero Friction and why Defaults Matters

Mon, 25 Feb 2008 01:07:10 GMT

What if what you consider to be 'baseline functionality' or a 'good default' isn't what someone else considers them to be? I'm not suggesting it is totally capricious, but I think a lot of what really amounts to personal preference is often mislabelled 'good'.