I want to directly address the idea that moving quickly means bad code. Heavy design process is also not the opposite of either speed or sloppy code. To go fast is to go well, and that means fast incremental design.

I previously wrote on the difficulties of Aspect-Orientation in C#. The addition of Source Generators in C# 9 changes the possibilities considerably.

I previously wrote on the difficulties of normalized result types in C#. Let me be clear, result types are still not great in C#, but C# 9 at least makes them practical.

I previously wrote on the difficulties of abstracting ID types in C#. Good news, C# 9 record types greatly simplify this design decision.

I’ve been on a long journey of meshing IDesign with Clean Architecture. Managers, engines, and utilities fit nicely, but accessors seemed too substantial for an adapter and not independent enough for a true service. At last, I’ve realized the place of accessors by building off their relationship to utilities. Accessors are independent services, not servants to managers.

I’ve been on a long journey of meshing IDesign with Clean Architecture. Accessors have been a conceptual sticking point.

Understanding Clean Architecture has transformed my approach to architecture. Now I feel like my understanding has evolved one step further by understanding its parent pattern’s name, Ports and Adapters.

It’s easy to drown in the sea of frameworks and methodologies available to programmers. Numerous authors speak out about against the constant swarming between them. However, now I have a concrete expression for both why it hurts and why fewer solutions can be better.

I’ve recently been learning about type systems, and I realized that structural and dynamic typing often pair while nominal and static type system often pair. Why?