This is all too advanced for me, but I think it is a good idea. I only wish the articles were a tad longer. The SQL article looks really good, but the Tests article stops far short from its title and seems more preachy than useful.
I think the challenge of writing any good coding resource is balancing philosophy with content. Most books and articles swing far into philosophy with little assertion to back it up, usually at the cost of content. The authors always forget that the reason I bought the book or opened the article is because I am, 99% of the time, already sold on the philosophy, idea, programming language, [flavor]. The Tests article offers little substantial content and doesn't bother to offer up any specific examples. Yes, there is a mention of RoR and its ORM, but then it concludes: "Well designed code will never substitute testing, but does give you the reassurance that no code coverage can match." In regards to this, I think Rich Hickey said it best: "gem install hairball."
Thank you for this feedback. You're validating the general direction we were hoping to pursue. Expect to see more high level content always paired with meaningful examples and real world application.
I think the challenge of writing any good coding resource is balancing philosophy with content. Most books and articles swing far into philosophy with little assertion to back it up, usually at the cost of content. The authors always forget that the reason I bought the book or opened the article is because I am, 99% of the time, already sold on the philosophy, idea, programming language, [flavor]. The Tests article offers little substantial content and doesn't bother to offer up any specific examples. Yes, there is a mention of RoR and its ORM, but then it concludes: "Well designed code will never substitute testing, but does give you the reassurance that no code coverage can match." In regards to this, I think Rich Hickey said it best: "gem install hairball."