
Laws, theories, principles and patterns that developers might find useful - signa11
https://github.com/dwmkerr/hacker-laws
======
mikece
I want to say it's "Steve Rambam's Law" that any information provided to a
private company will eventually be leaked, breached, or sold to data brokers,
ultimately becoming public data. If it's not, it certainly sounds like
something he would have said in his "Privacy is Dead" talks at the H.O.P.E.
conferences.

------
Someone1234
This is almost certainly a personal problem, but I can never wrap my head
around the "open/closed" thing. I'm actually a big fan of the other SOLID
principles and use them daily, which makes this extra awkward.

The problem with the open/closed principle is that the explanations of it
start convoluted and get even more convoluted from there. With a bunch of
disclaimers needing to be added to any example of an open Vs closed
implementation using a modern framework/language.

Even the Wikipedia article makes no sense to me:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open%E2%80%93closed_principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open%E2%80%93closed_principle)

Now if they're just talking about immutable objects, that makes sense. But it
doesn't seem that simple, and many of the examples aren't really implementing
immutable objects.

~~~
jfoutz
This is real handwavy and potentially wrong, but maybe helpful.

Closed is the thing you're _enforcing_. You have to pay your taxes. Open is
the policy that you don't care much about. Cash, check, money order. Maybe
others get tacked on later.

I know it doesn't sound like much, and it's really a pretty weak tool compared
to stuff like contracts.

The best example i can dredge up is gui components. I don't care _what_ you
draw. I do care that you stick to the small area of the screen set aside for
you. The base component _enforces_ no coloring outside the lines. Inside the
lines, you can be a textbox, or a button, or a whatever.

------
User23
Parkinson's Law is incorrectly stated, as anyone who makes it to the second
paragraph of the essay[1] can see. The pithy quote is just the opening
sentence to the piece. The substance of the piece is far more interesting, and
describes a law about the growth of bureaucracies. I strongly recommend anyone
interested to just read the whole thing, because it's only 5 pages.

[1][https://www.berglas.org/Articles/parkinsons_law.pdf](https://www.berglas.org/Articles/parkinsons_law.pdf)

------
BerislavLopac
The Fundamental Theorem of Software Engineering should be on the list (and its
"humorous" expansion even more so):
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorem_of_softwar...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorem_of_software_engineering)

------
AnxiousHyena
Is the blurb around the Amdahl's law chart wrong or am I misreading the chart?

Shouldn't it be 50% and 2 processing units or 90% and 10 units?

