On the importance of unification

Unification, for me, means having one way or instrument (not always the best) to deal with a problem. And, in some cases, it is crucial.

It's important to have only one instrument for solving a problem

Example #1

Let’s look at the design of the Go programming language. In one of my favorite talks, “Simplicity is Complicated”, Rob Pike says: “A lot of people have asked for things like map and filter to be built into Go and we said no”. He gave this example while talking about the expense feature(s) may have, but I think it also applies to the quote below.

If there is a lot of features, you may look at the line of code, write it one way. “Uu, I could do something different.” You might even spend half an hour playing with a few lines of code… and it’s kind of a waste of time to do it, but worse, when you come back to the program later, you have to recreate that thought process. Rob Pike

Preferable to have just one way, or at least fewer, simpler ways. Rob Pike

Highly recommend watching this video.

Example #2

At FunBox, the company I was working for, we had only one way to deploy the code - Capistrano.

We were using many languages (Ruby, Erlang, Clojure, Elixir). Each of those was packaged differently (raw, release, .tar, release), but there was only one deploy method. And it was great! You, as the programmer, do not think how to deploy a project, you simply type bundle exec cap production deploy.

Capistrano itself may not be the best choice, but it’s not so important, comparing to what we’re talking about.

Example #3

Another example may be using make as a build tool for all of your projects. Again, if you have many languages (e.g. JavaScript on the frontend and Go on the backend), the cost of having 2 different ways to test/build/etc. may be too high. To ease the development, you could create a Makefile and have a single target for testing (say, make test).

If you have any comments, you could leave them below or send me an email.


comments powered by Disqus