Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

We published a small collection of Python-related anti-patterns a while ago under a creative commons license, feel free to check it out:

http://docs.quantifiedcode.com/python-code-patterns/




Are those also considered anti-patterns, or simply "bad practices"? The examples in the article seem to have a wider scale than the ones mentioned in your collection.

My question is, where is the line the line between an anti-pattern or simply a "bad practice", or if they are the same?


Probably more bad practice by that definition, though for me the two concepts are very similar. I think the original article aimed more at process and large scale patterns, where our book aims more at small scale patterns.


anti-pattern would be: "commonly reinvented bad solution to a recurring problem" (paraphrasing wikipedia)


Anti-patterns can be copied as well as reinvented. Also, some can manifest simply through developers' inattention rather than being a deliberate reinvention, such as:

* Big Ball of Mud

* Creeping featuritis

* Copy Pasta


There's patterns and then there's design patterns. The latter is more high-level, as you're thinking.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: