FizzBuzzEnterpriseEdition

ayer around it. Abstractions aren't free, and the more complex the library you're trying to abstract, the more expensive they are. There's nuances to this of course -- it's a lot easier to write a custom wrapper around a logging library than a DI framework, for example. But in general if you're using a third party library, things end up cleaner if you just commit to it rather than write an abstraction layer. [0] https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

I'm not sure I totally buy this argument because there doesn't seem to be an obvious way to define the "size" of an interface where it holds true. The naive way to define the size would be number of methods, but I'd argue that methods can vary so much in terms of the amount of cognitive overhead they "expose" to the user that it's not very meaningful. Consider the Movfuscator compiler[0], which compiles code into binaries only using MOV x86 instructions because it happens to be Turing complete; as complex as it might be to learn x86 assembly as a whole and start writing programs directly in it, I'm dubious that trying to do so only with MOV would somehow be easier. Put another way, an x86 instruction set that only contains the MOV instruction is not a "stronger" abstraction than the actual one because it _introduces_ complexity that doesn't exist in the original. Does adding an ADD instruction alongside MOV increase the strength of the abstraction, or weaken it? I don't think there's an answer that we'd immediately all agree on for this sort of thing. Ultimately, I think trying to measure interfaces through the number of methods they expose is similar to trying to measure code by the number of lines in it; while there are some extreme cases where we'd likely all agree (e.g. for a fizzbuzz implementation, having 10 lines of code is probably better than thousands of lines of code[1]), we can't really come up with a good objective metric because the "target" number is based on the complexity of what you're trying to define, and we don't have a way of quantifying that complexity. I think the ideas here are still super interesting though, not because they have definitive right or wrong answers, but because thinking about stuff like this overall improves one's ability to write good software for usage by other programmers. [0]: https://github.com/xoreaxeaxeax/movfuscator [1]: https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

problems, something will eventually come up to eat your lunch just like IBM saw its herd of dinosaurs being overtaken by those upstart critters from the undergrowth. Maybe some smart software system which "guarantees" data reliability and availability without the need for "enterprise" storage devices? It wouldn't be the first time after all. [1] https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...