[fluoridation]

I don't mean to be dismissive of the effort you went to in writing all that, but nothing you've said argues why software engineers would benefit from more planning. It argues for some planning, sure; I never said no planning whatsoever is good. If you intend to build, say, a website, that presents a very different set of challenges and usable tools than if you instead intended to build a microcontroller's firmware. But you seem to agree with me that in software you can turn on a dime, yet you don't don't offer any reason why more planning than what is already done would be beneficial.

[godelski]

  > I never said no planning whatsoever is good

Nor did I say programmers do no planning.

  > yet you don't don't offer any reason why more planning than what is already done would be beneficial.

You're selling high precision, which is impossible in this discussion. I don't know you and thus can't adapt my message to your specific needs. You'll need to think carefully about what I've said to see if it applies to you or not. Look carefully at that vacation scenario. How does it differ from how you go about solving a programming problem? Why do you think I'm stressing so much about how the ability to turn on a dime is an entirely different dimension?

You're a programmer, so I'd expect this to not be too difficult since you deal with deep levels of abstraction every day, right? You know how to generalize functions? You're aware of anonymous functions? Functors? Templates? And many other such generalizations? Why are you seeking such high precision when you can write down a function that automatically adopts to a wide range of cases and situations?

[fluoridation]

Buddy, you're the one who originally made a specific claim.

>Programmers would be more effective if they spend more time at the drawing board

If you want to retract it then that's fine, but don't act like I'm being unreasonable for asking what reasons you have for making it.

[godelski]

  > don't act like I'm being unreasonable for asking what reasons you have for making it.
 

You are though. You never had any intention of talking in good faith, and it was my mistake for engaging.

You've constructed a setting where no matter what level of planning I suggest you'll be able to say that this already is performed.

You've constructed a setting where I must make a suggestion for YOU, when I've made a note about a generalization I've observed. Did I say "all"? Of course not. I'm a programmer too, right?

You've ignored my generalization while attempting to weaponize it against me by seeking high precision.

You then use precision to argue the variability and importance of adapting to differing settings.

You've moved the goalpost multiple times.

You've actively worked against requests to help refine the conversation to settings more appropriate for you, to determine if you are included in the initial generalization or not.

So yeah, you are being unreasonable. I see that all you wanted to do was pick a fight. I want no part in your dumb game.