Comments by "nexovec" (@nexovec) on "Kantan Coding" channel.

I've also been taught to DRY and SOLID and whatever, but I know better now.
2
@Harold046 it's not always true comments should disappear, in fact the comments that do should be explicitly marked as such(FIXMEs of the world), sometimes there is just more to the code than just the implementation. The thing you should NEVER do is couple comments to the code(like mention classnames), or provide explanations for things that are clearly visible when reading the code.
2
The unnesting is super helpful, but extracting things like this is a giant nuisance, because it's now a function call. What does it do? It does an unspecified thing that returns whether the user is validated. What does it mean for a user to be validated? We don't know the implementation, so we don't really know. Are guest users considered valid? Who knows... Also, obviously, when validating a user, you'd do a cache lookup and a database call, it surely wouldn't just be an OR, right? right(insert meme)? Extracting things like this is a perfect way to make things more complicated by making them completely opaque. Also I don't extract nearly as much boilerplate as is suggested, I just don't mind it, especially in places where you're quite likely to modify the boilerplate, like error handling.
1
You needed to shell out like 70 lines of test code that's actually $#!t itself just to have more than one bug still present in the code (you have unhandled errors there and you are also inserting an untrimmed name). You'd also need to test mail.ParseAddress, which would be more work than this entire function. You've made one junior's afternoon into a week's worth of work for an entire team. It's also not true you couldn't make the original function testable, because you can just do dependency injection on the db connection and pass a mock implementation in the tests. Yes, there's a lot of people on youtube who don't understand their own advice(on top of being really bad programmers).
1