"It worked different three months ago...". But I agree that this is no reason to gave to wade through commented out sections[1] but to simply use the powers of <vcs-of-choice> diff.
I definitely recognize these patterns from non-startups. Ingredients: demanding customers, company led by former developers who still avoid all non-coding related improvements as enterprisy. Often it is simply the Peter Principle at work, duct-tape programming led you here, but not further.
Another important thing he points at is to not write you own incarnation of every library you find lacking but provide patches/support/whatever to existing ones. While it might help your CV to have just another template library (which will inevitably be lacking again) on github, the ecosystem profits more from a few well defined and long-term maintained choices.
I would want to turn the question around and (genuinely, not rhetorically) ask: which ecosystems right now do have a good security baseline? Am I wrong when I guess Java/.Net/Ruby and possibly more recent PHP frameworks?
ASP.NET MVC 4 and later is pretty decent, Rails is getting better but recently had a large series of problems, and django is one of the most secure by default web frameworks that I've ever used. Django really gets a lot of things (sessions, CSRF, XSS, etc..) right out of the box. Grails is pretty decent but I don't have a lot of in depth Java framework experience but it seems to vary based on the framework.
In this case you are probably right. The solution with separate configuration shines though, when you have many values to configure (notwithstanding keyword args). But, and that is my main takeaway, TDD does apparently (and not surprisingly) not show the way to one or the other solution. On the contrary: the solution was already given in advance and the TDD part was more or less toying around with the moving parts of the solution.
So you see how difficult it is to please armchair psychologists: leaving out the first person pronoun from sentences is also considered bad style by some (with the suggested pseudo objectivity). Others conclude even that the person has no self esteem etc etc.
A resume is about the person presenting him/herself, isn't it?
I personally leave out "I", but yes, I have seen HR professionals suggest that you leave it in for the reasons you just stated (lack of self-confidence).
This is why it's important for hiring companies to have an open mind, for both their sake and the candidate's. Yes, a resume should be well-written, to the point, and free of errors, but realizing that everyone has their own idiosyncrasies will go a long way.
It's a mystery how writing about such an interesting theme can be so dry and witless. Good lord, it's like eating cardboard.
Donning my tinfoil hat for a moment, I can only conclude that this is made on purpose so that the vast majority of the public can be manipulated with all the crap we see on TV.
While yes,I am completely against the usage of booth babes (they don't work anyways[1]) But... I kinda feel weird about just blaming the industry as if it was a human-trafficking mafia. Booth babes aren't slaves you know... they CHOSE to work in that role. So they have a share of the blame, no?
PS: Not saying all women are to blame! But you smart intellectual ladies gotta agree that they contribute to the problem (just as the people who employ them)
I am probably not smart, maybe not intellectual but most definitely not a lady.
As for the industry: seemingly the industry thinks that showing ass and tits on a booth is worth it. That alone says enough. It is not about the ones who are earning their money there but the ones who think that their industry needs that. No discussion of "choice" needed.
How about we blame the individuals within the industry that participate in and perpetuate the culture that thinks it's okay to use female sexuality to sell software products. It's patronising to men within the industry, it's off-putting to women within the industry and it makes the industry as a whole look extremely unprofessional from the outside.
I think it's the chinese whisper effect applied to http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html [0] and as such more cult than information. As witnessed by the discussion around here.
[0] ("Correctness-the design must be correct in all observable aspects. It is slightly better to be simple than correct.")
[1] Including if(0){} abominations