It turns out that people can have very different kind of principles in mind.

Some principles are primarily ethical, such as "Make our product work for people with disabilities, because it's the right thing to do".

Some principles are primarily legal, such as "Encrypt data at rest and in motion, because we don't want compliance problems".

Some principles are primarily practical, such as "Bias for action: if you're 80% sure, and you decision is easy to reverse, then proceed."

> The Wright brothers achieved flight before fully understanding the physics behind the airfoil,

> James Dyson learned what makes a great double cyclone vacuum only after building them,

> The bicycle was invented without an understanding of the mechanisms which maintain its balance.

The principles in question are physical, immutable laws of nature, and they are in fact the cause of success, not the byproduct of success. You can be ignorant of physics, but you can't ignore it, otherwise you'll end up injured or dead.

On the other hand, the principles of HTML semantics were just an invention of Tim Berners-Lee, not God. There's nothing stopping you from ignoring those principles. This follows from the quoted tweet: "they are often disregarded by developers and tools when producing markup and styling".

They shouldn't. Principles are something that guides practice. Like the principles of aerodynamics guided the evolution of the airplane even if they weren't fully known at the time. (And this example on the article is just wrong.)

If you use the same word for something that is derived from practice (like best practices, on the HTML example), you will lack one for the really fundamental stuff.

These days, I don't even think about it, and my productivity is pretty much as good as you can get.

Plus, I am the one that usually has to go back into my code, and maintain it, so I'm glad of that habit.

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit."

- Mis-attributed to Aristotle.

They transcend the mere aftermath of triumphs, as posited by the author, to encapsulate the intricate tapestry woven by both successes and failures.

The author posits that principles are the byproduct of success, but that’s simply not the whole truth.

Principles, far from being dichotomous with experimentation, represent not only “prescriptive guidelines for successful implementation” but also incorporate the counsel of hard experiences and bitter emotional lessons distilled from the long and enormous crucible of software project failures.

In my experience managing and coding software engineering projects, this kind of fidelity to principles becomes a multidimensional pursuit, where the so-called “failure principles” bear just as much gravitas as their counterparts learned from success.

> This is also why it’s important for the makers of policies and standards to be connected with the real-time experimentation in a market, and not in silo, to constantly adapt, iterate, and refine standards and principles according to real-world outcomes.

This lesson is profoundly true, and encompassed in lean experimentation and their ilk, and while it’s important not to rely on principles to guide product as effectively it becomes tradition guiding product instead of learnings and therein lies real risk, principles and the practice of adapting, iterating and refining standards are not exclusive in any way. You can have a map and make changes as you learn things in the exploration.

That is why we have rules of thumb and principles for doing things: because it’s incredibly important to pay attention to “principles” in order to mitigate the not so insignificant risk of catastrophic failure. So saying that all principles come from success is not correct.

After all, ‘those who chase two rabbits never catch one’ isn’t the lesson of a successful hunt.

Examples:

- Permaculture design principle #1 - "Observe and Interact"

- Kanban principles, "Make work visible", "Everything in its place"

> - Do not repeat yourself.

I recently ran into a case where DRY was practically a necessity, because the alternative (of simply repeating myself) would not only have been prone to copy/paste errors during authorship, but also have resulted in code with an incredibly low signal to noise ratio (which also would have made authorship quite tedious).

For a bit of backstory, I'm currently toying with writing some Luau bindings for Rust, but Luau (by default) throws C++ exceptions instead of using longjmp. These exceptions can be thrown by almost any Luau function, and I need to prevent them from unwinding across FFI boundaries to avoid triggering Undefined Behavior, because in Rust, it is UB for a "C"-ABI function to unwind into its caller.

Here are some things that can throw C++ exceptions in Luau:

- OOM when allocating new garbage-collectible objects in an existing VM. Creating the VM itself is (most traditionally) done through luaL_newstate, which returns NULL on allocation failure, but once you have a VM, attempting to instantiate a collectible object within it will throw an exception if allocation fails. This can happen indirectly through any other operation that internally creates collectible objects.

- Attempting to modify a readonly table. Luau implements a readonly bit for tables that controls a guard against modification of that table, even by native code. It does this by throwing an exception when any such modification is attempted. However, just like collectible objects, table modification is an implementation detail of all sorts of things. While I don't expect anyone to be able to readonly the Luau registry, it is still a thing that you can do to arbitrary other tables (assuming that the host side doesn't omit or remove the `table.freeze` function from the standard library). Technically, you could defensively check the readonly bit from Rust before attempting those operations, but that would cause it to be checked twice on each operation, and this workaround doesn't generalize to other sources of exceptions, nor does it work through indirections (random other functions that happen to write to tables internally).

- Arbitrary function calls, if an interrupt callback is set. Luau supports an "interrupt" callback that is periodically called by the VM at "checkpoints" such as function calls. The interrupt callback is allowed to throw an exception, as this is the officially supported method of eventually terminating functions that contain infinite loops or other code that blocks the thread for too long. AFAIK, it can also be triggered in the middle of C closures if you perform certain operations like making a Luau function call. Although Luau function calls themselves may error, the interrupt callback can cause any Luau function call to error, even if it normally should not.

Luau probably expects those kinds of operations to be performed primarily by C++ functions executing under the VM ("C closures"), where any exceptions will be automatically caught and a status code returned to whoever called the VM. Generally, it is quite a reasonable assumption to make that a library will be used from the same language that it is written in.

However, Rust can't currently express "C closures" that are capable of unwinding, because unwinding out of a "C"-ABI function is Undefined Behavior (Rust wouldn't be able to unwind into the VM), and so is a "C"-ABI function unwinding into a Rust stack frame (library functions wouldn't be able to unwind into Rust in the first place).

The "C-unwind" ABI should eventually allow Rust to express and call FFI functions that are capable of unwinding, but it hasn't quite reached stabilization yet.

If Rust had already supported "C-unwind", I could have just defined a C++ wrapper function that catches Luau exceptions and translates them into a tagged union or something representing success or failure. Unfortunately that is not yet the case.

Luckily, Luau has some internal functions that allow you to catch exceptions regardless of whether they are exceptions or longjmps, but they work by executing a callback that you pass to it, and you can only pass a single pointer value through to the callback. Therefore, my first solution was to place the arguments to be passed in a struct, as well as a slot for a return value, and then read that struct by pointer in order to call the function and write its return value into the slot.[0]

This worked, but it was a lot of manual code for each individual function that had to be protected from errors - you had to duplicate the argument list about 4 times (wrapper function signature, struct definition, struct initializer, and wrapped function invocation), which quickly got quite tedious, especially since quite a few functions are going to need this wrapping treatment.

My first DRY implementation[1] was to create a template that can produce a wrapper around any function, that calls it with any number of arguments, of any types. I still needed to manually prepare a list of functions in advance to protect, since you can't instantiate templates over FFI, but this was a lot more painless than the first try.

It's just that the templates are a bit of a mess.

[0]: https://github.com/LoganDark/luau-rs/blob/787eb0c7987c08304c...

[1]: https://github.com/LoganDark/luau-rs/blob/de5abd5420a5311c27...