Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
There was a similar question discussed around collaboration tools but one point wasn't fully agreed upon. As we now have all of these collaboration and documentation tools (WIKIs, sharepoints, blogs, etc) to keep track of project plans, busienss requirements, technical documentation, etc, the question is "should we ever delete this data". As organizations evolve and reorganize and people come and go, a lot of this data is out of date or no longer relavant or correct.
One thought is that there maybe useful stuff inside this data so keep it around and preserve the info at that time and it would be good to have historic context.
An opposing argument is that this data provides too much noise and can lead to people finding it hard to get the up to date latest data
Thoughts?
We recently dealt with exactly this problem on our internal wiki. It's really important to keep the ratio of signal-noise high, or you will find users will stop using the tool for content, and will find alternative channels. The vast majority of all user searches on an internal knowledge base will be for current information. This strongly suggests that current information should be the easy-to-find default, and out of date content should be dealt with or made less accessible.
For example, in our organisation, there was a widespread perception that 'most' of the information on our intranet was out of date, and therefore could not be relied on. This lead to immense inefficiencies as individuals felt there was no option other than to contact one another directly, call meetings, make personal notes etc., in order to obtain current information. The combined administrative burden on the organisation was huge.
We chose to explicitly deprecate content which was no longer relevant, but had historical value. These pages are prominently marked with a 'deprecated' box at the top of the wiki page, and archived. They are still linked from their logical wiki sections for reference, but are clearly mothballed, and can be easily ignored if not required.
This makes it very clear that the information is not up-to-date. For truly useless old docs (as determined by the orignal author, or the wiki maintainer - me), we delete. But even in these cases, the pages are not truly gone. We use Mediawiki, which preserves the full history of every deleted page. These are still available to administrators, but the benefit of deletion is that they don't appear in searches, and can't be navigated to by ordinary users.
The result for us has been a clear win. We now have an intranet which is genuinely useful to actual users. In the end that's much more important than worrying about endless 'what if this obsolete information is somehow relevant in the future' questions. The vast majority of it will never be required, by anyone, ever.
In short, don't be afraid to rigorously prune old stuff. The signal-to-noise ratio is what really matters.
I suppose a big part of the question is "can we afford to never delete?" as in, does the org have the drive space?
Memory is cheap, but drive space allocation can sometimes be conservative, probably to discouraging projects and departments from being sloppy, etc.
I would say that if the space is there, always backup and version, because with Enterprise stuff, having a paper trail and history is more likely to pay off then be a waste of space. For the terabytes of data that will never get seen again, there is a line of code or documentation or an email that will be priceless when it's needed.
Having said that, I also think redundancy should be avoided. If your wiki has seven articles on basically the same thing, that is not the same as a back up, because it means having to update seven places for every change, and this will lead to misinformation that could count against the value of a backup. If someone needs to know how something worked 2 years ago and pull up the article that didn't get updated (or was just wrong), this has made the entire backup system a risk instead of an asset.
Ironically, I do think when fixing redundancy, that the redundancy should be part of the back up. This is where my viewpoints obviously clash, which is why I think its important to a) always try to centralize sources and have things point to them, and b) fix redundancies early. If you can somehow tie them all together so that a search for that needed info will ensure that the seeker will know of the other 6 articles, that would be an ideal patch, so long as it didn't create a crutch.
Long story short, it's better to archive data that never gets used then to wish you hadn't.
Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Now that I know some of the basics of C++, I must admit that I still find it very hard to deal with code that others have written in C++. This may inherently be so, as C++ allows for complex object hierarchies that are, or at least to me, very hard to grasp if one is just supplied with a C++ Project without any further comments or instructions.
So my question is more a question to the more experienced C++ programmers among you: how can someone understand a large C++ project written by others?
I easily loose my way and can be lost for weeks, if I try to understand how a large project of, for example, 10,000 lines of code is written. Functions of classes are pointers to functions of different classes that may or may not be overloaded and may or may not be inherited by other classes, etcetera, without ending.
Are there any practical tips that may speed up my ability to read and understand large C++ projects? Is there perhaps a tutorial with such tips? Please, elaborate! :)
I've been programming professionally for some time now, and as such I have repeatedly been handed down codebases written by others before me. Understanding is never easy, especially when the code is inconsistent.
The first thing to realize, though, is that learning your ways in a new codebase is not so different than re-discovering a codebase you had not touched for a while. Thus, whether written by your old-self of others does not matter much; and since you probably manage to cope with re-discovering codebases you had worked on before, you should be able to discover new codebases as well. Don't lose hope.
The second thing to realize is that understanding is a vague term, and there are certainly different degrees. Often times, nobody asks you to understand the ins and outs completely; more likely you will be asked to understand a portion of the codebase in which either there is a bug or some new functionality should be developed. Therefore, as time passes, you will gradually gain an understanding of various portions, and you will inevitably have a deeper knowledge of the portions you worked the most whilst others can be relatively abstract or even completely obscure. It's okay, it's been a long time since human beings stopped trying to learn everything there was to learn.
With that said, there are several axis of understanding you can try:
you should look for architecture: a good thing is to trace the library dependencies (the Makefile/Project should help here) this will give you the coarse technical blocks out of which the application is built. Executables are normally leaves of the dependency trees.
you should look for data-flow: what's the trigger of the application (called directly or as a callback) ? what are the steps followed by this data (roughly, just a sketch). Do not hesitate to focus on a specific narrow usecase and use the debugger to trace things, and do not try to dig too deep at first; just get a feel of things.
There are also other axis that may help gaining some understanding of the domain the application has been written for. An understanding of the domain is useful because it provides you with a key insight on what should happen and it also helps you decipher the comments/function names.
user documentation: what is this used for ? if you can arrange for a demo it is generally very helpful, otherwise maybe you can try playing with it yourself (in a test environment)
tests: what is tested ? what is exposed to the user ?
persistent data: what is serialized ? what is saved in a database ? Persistent data is accessed at some point, so it helps if you understand when it is read/written.
If it is a working product (that runs) and you can "debug" it, start by looking at just one particular feature.
Learn how it is working from the user's point of view (UI, behaviour, inputs, outputs, ...).
Once you know the feature from the outside, just look for the code for that feature (only that feature); the starting point might be a handler for a menu, or from a dialog or a mouse/pointer event.
From there; manually trace the code for one action or sub-feature; skip deep internal libraries (treat them as black box for now) and learn how it works.
Once you know that section of code, dig deeper in libraries API that was called from the upper level code.
Take your time.
Do not try to understand everything at once.
Draw up schematic (pen and paper) of the dependencies (stay high level, no class dependencies at the beginning).
Good luck.
The problem that you are mentioning does not have clear and simple answer. Nevertheless here are some tips:
At the beginning try to randomly remember everything. Names of directories, classes, params of templates, etc. As much as you can. This sounds pointless but still makes sense.
While working with the code always think "Have I looked at this function/param/etc before?" If the answer is yes, spend with this piece of code more. If not, just make basic grasp and go on.
As the time will go on, you will find out that more and more sounds clear and easier to grasp.
It is impossible to give any exact values because size and complexity of projects vary greatly. Do not expect simple and immediate results.
Other points:
You definitely need a source code browser. Spend time in learning how to use it. Good example is http://sourceinsight.com/. This is not my site!!! I do have my own site. I will not mention it here.
If you see a function that is called 500 times, it is 500 times more likely that knowledge about this function will be useful comparing with a function, that is called only once.
The best is to grasp the architecture of the project. Trying to do this it is necessary to remember that project may have no architecture at all.
Studying the code you should remember your task. Typical situation - you need to modify something or fix a bug. If this is so look for the right part of the code and focus your effort on it.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I found around 8 Strenghts and flaws of using APEX over another program(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_Application_Express), but i am not sure i quite understand WHEN to use it.
From what i understand, if you want a fast and easy-to-use development tool related to Oracle, Apex is your first choice. While if you need a complex solution, APEX won't fit.
I would like to know you guys opinion on this. In my case, i need to know if i should recommand this product or not for a raquetball club. Since it is not a big company, i believe HTML DB would be the best choice because we want as less manipulations as possible once it's implemented. We also don't want the owner of the club to pay a lot of money to get somoeone who can develop updates.
Apex is free, and an oracle XE database is free too. Apex is rapid development.
But what you're asking depends on so much more.
From what i understand, if you want a fast and easy-to-use development
tool related to Oracle, Apex is your first choice.
Is an oracle database already being used?
Easy to use dev tool: yes, sure. But as with anything, it depends on whether you have some experience with it, what the specs and expectations are, ...
While if you need a complex solution, APEX won't fit.
Well,... Would a complex solution be so much less complex in another environment? Just how complex are we thinking? In my opinion, you can go pretty far in apex and adapt it to your needs. it might involve creating templates and plugins to set up a framework, but it is doable. An example would be apex projects whom have been completely integrated with ExtJS. Apex is not the answer to everything too, but it's good. If you'd stay within the Oracle stack for more involved/complex, i'd say the next thing is ADF. Personally, i'm not convinced by that one though. It also has its pros and cons (such as: requiring java knowledge. pro for some, con for others...)
In my case, i need to know if i should recommand this product or not for a raquetball club. Since it is not a big company, i believe HTML DB would be the best choice because we want as less manipulations as possible once it's implemented.
How large is this club? How intense will the website be used?
Is there a DB already? Is it Oracle?
Who has DBA knowledge (even basic)?
Who will develop?
If your specs are up to spec, then much fiddling shouldn't be necessary after the launch.
We also don't want the owner of the club to pay a lot of money to get somoeone who can develop updates
Who will host the server? Who will run it? Who will administrate it? Do you plan to go cloud-based?
I'd almost ventured to suggest PHP may be a good alternative if this is a small project. Those developers may be easier to find and less expensive than an apex/oracle developer. But then again, if you're planning to outsource it may be less of an issue. If your oracle instance would be in the cloud somewhere, you'd even be pretty safe i'd believe...
Really, what options are you trying to compare? You're asking about apex, do you have any experience with it?
Honestly, your question is not so much a question as it is an opener to a discussion. Each technology and database will have its pro's and cons, fans and dislikers.
Personally, i really like apex. It has a lot going for it, especially when you're already invested in the Oracle stack. And it is still growing, getting good support, and great releases with lots of new features.
I can't really say how it must be set up a (reliable) service from the ground up: server and database, doesn't matter how small, you'll need some understanding and knowledge for that. If you just wing it and cross your fingers, you'll burn them somewhere down the line. Same with development. But as far as i'm concerned that goes for any other tech. Unless you outsource those aspects of course.
Etc etc. There is much and more to be discussed this way.
I put a downvote there for these reasons: there is much to be discussed, it isn't really much of a question which has a conclusive answer. And it maybe only could fetch a conclusive answer if you put more specifications up there and get people of the concurrent platforms to respond.
Edit
I'd like to react on Daniel's post.
First I have to say that I am originally a PHP-Developer, and I really like this language and environment. Nevertheless I decided to do an internship this summer, where I am currently working with APEX. Together with another intern I am developing a bigger application, and I hope to give you some useful input. This only covers the development of the application, as I am not really involved in things like database administration and so on (although I have to say that a PHP Webspace with a MySQL Database also isn't to hard to administrate, especially if there are not too many users).
I'm a developer too, and i don't do server and database administration (corporate environment). Not that i haven't dabbled a bit here and there in my spare time, but i digress.
But my experience is that it gets very, very hard to solve tasks which are out of this range. That doesn't mean that you can't get multiple tables in one reports, some joining of tables is also not a big problem, and can be easily achieved. But if your application needs even more than this I cannot recommend APEX, so I totally agree with your rule, that complex applications should be created in another way.
So speaking as a PHP developer, would you even recommend PHP to achieve this? Would it be less or just as complex?
I'd also argue about complexity. I've worked on some large forms, which for me by now means there are more than your average amount of items, some dynamic actions, validations, maybe some custom process(es). I've not encountered extremely complex situations and honestly i'd question who created those expectations. Thinking outside the box may be a virtue at times, but that doesn't mean the box is always bad. Complex mechanisms or pages can maybe be broken down into more easily accomplishable parts. An example would be using modal pages to break it up.
I also think that the slogan with the limited programming experience is only partial true. It is only true if you have only easy applications, as you have already said. I personally also can't stand the mixing between an IDE and "easy to use"-forms.
I agree about limited programming experience: you'll only create the most basic forms and reports, and having almost no experience i'd think you'd shy away from even option pages in fear of breaking something. Same thing goes for even basic db and server administration: i wouldn't like to rely on such a person when there is no experienced backup (but a very small project as is apperently being described might be acceptable).
I too am only invested in the programming side.
It's also not very easy to create new templates and other things, at least in my opinion it would be much easier with other frameworks.
I'd say that the templates make things very flexible and are certainly not hard to use
And maybe even the worst thing: I think that this application is quite buggy. I don't know how many times simple deleting and new creation of a process/page/validation or whatever solved a problem, where you are simply not thinking of this solution.
Wow. I strongly disagree with this. I've maybe encountered one such thing over the course of a year and tons of forms. Not that i haven't heard of some problems on the OTN forums, but usually they had to do with upgrades.
Summary: I would only use APEX if you have application which REALLY fits it. That means just reports and forms, everything which is more results in pain debugging sessions (as this is also not easy in this environment...) and bad maintenance.
It is too bad that there are not that many large, public sites which use apex out there. As far as i'm aware, there are and have been large project involving apex, but those usually are in a corporate environment and thus are never shown off (can't be). I personally believe apex can be pushed a lot further than the basic forms+reports you mention (and i mean basic, because things will usually come down to forms+reports in this context).
Debugging does not have to be a pain though. If you provide enough debug messages and comments in your own code, that will help a great deal. Debugging the page, javascript console, and if needs be an autonomous error logging procedure to be used in your plsql packages,... I'd say there is plenty to help out (and if you're driven to this, you are working on some more complex material, and i assume that you have the knowledge to actually deal with the complexity you've set up).
And interesting point you raise lastly is maintenance though. I'd say a point on which apex should improve a lot is versioning, out of the box. Exports need to be improved so they can be broken up a lot easier.
Wow, look at that wall of text... I could've guessed this would turn out into a discussion.
First I have to say that I am originally a PHP-Developer, and I really like this language and environment. Nevertheless I decided to do an internship this summer, where I am currently working with APEX. Together with another intern I am developing a bigger application, and I hope to give you some useful input. This only covers the development of the application, as I am not really involved in things like database administration and so on (although I have to say that a PHP Webspace with a MySQL Database also isn't to hard to administrate, especially if there are not too many users).
To start we created a few applications, just to get a feeling. Afterwards we started with the easy parts of the application. APEX is really great if you only have to build some reports and forms to edit the entries of the database. It's very fast to create these things with the integrated wizards.
But my experience is that it gets very, very hard to solve tasks which are out of this range. That doesn't mean that you can't get multiple tables in one reports, some joining of tables is also not a big problem, and can be easily achieved. But if your application needs even more than this I cannot recommend APEX, so I totally agree with your rule, that complex applications should be created in another way.
I also think that the slogan with the limited programming experience is only partial true. It is only true if you have only easy applications, as you have already said. I personally also can't stand the mixing between an IDE and "easy to use"-forms. It's also not very easy to create new templates and other things, at least in my opinion it would be much easier with other frameworks.
And maybe even the worst thing: I think that this application is quite buggy. I don't know how many times simple deleting and new creation of a process/page/validation or whatever solved a problem, where you are simply not thinking of this solution.
Summary: I would only use APEX if you have application which REALLY fits it. That means just reports and forms, everything which is more results in pain debugging sessions (as this is also not easy in this environment...) and bad maintenance.
I am posting here as a guest--hopefully, I will create an account. I used O-HTML-DB from its early releases. We built pretty fine apps. I last used it in 2004, having moved to non-development roles.
Since 2007 though, I decided to revisit the tool and found out about APEX. I have since had my own test apps. I disagree with most of what the intern says.
If you have a limited objective (your business need and associated requirements), then your use of APEX will be limited. This is a very robust application, with sophisticated security features (I have been in InfoSec/Cyber since 2009.
Yes, you are correct than claims about APEX not requiring a solid development background are not accurate. You need to have a sound grasp of SQL/PL/SQL, JavaScript. But you c an also take great advantage of OTN, where developers generously share their know-how. When I started with O-HTML-DB, I had never built a DA in a business environment before. I had theoretical SQL skills. I was a Web Developer with a grasp of JavaScrip, training in Java from Learning Tree International (in addition to academics). But I and my colleague (we were two developers) learned a great deal from OTN. We built three Web apps, one of which supported over 6,000 users--just O-HTML-DB!
APEX has taken O-HTML-DB to new dimensions. You do not need to hard-code validations like we did with O-HTML-DB. Of course, you can modify, which requires a sound grasp of SQL/PL/SQL.
Maybe templating is somewhat confusing to many developers, understandably. But as you continue to "play" with APEX, I am sure you'll like it. It can do nearly anything. Only your limited vision will restrict it.
Erick
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm searching for a C++ and open source library to protect a commercial software again crack etc...
Do you know one ?
I have a phrase I like to use for these types of situations: "You can't solve a social problem with a technological solution". If someone is sufficiently motivated to do something you don't like, you can't stop them. The harder you make it to do something, the harder they'll try to get around your barrier. In the end, the only way is to diminish their motivation, and that needs a social solution.
Effectively preventing software from being cracked is an incredibly hard cat and mouse game. With every advancement you can make protecting your program, someone is going to figure it out and get around it. After all, your program does have to run on a computer, and if the computer can understand what it's doing, given enough time, a sufficiently motivated person can do it.
I'm not saying that crack-protecting isn't useful. If you make it hard enough, it will take crackers so long to subvert your software that once they do, that version's so out of date that it's useless. But doing this right is very difficult, and unfortunately there are no simple band-aid solutions that a lay-person can just slap on. Like Tom said, any "just stick it in" method of crack proofing can be just as easily be "snipped right out". Your program needs to be designed from the start to have an anti-cracking approach.
With no intention to insult you, if you're asking this question, then its clear that you don't know enough about software protection to design it in or to use it effectively, and you clearly aren't prepared for the arms race you need to be in to keep your software really powerfully protected.
Most likely whatever you're writing isn't worth the effort of locking it down to an extreme level. Take the simple approach. Your goal should be to keep honest people honest. Just write a plain old, simple verification routine to check if the user's key, when combined with the user's name, address, and other info, passes some checksum. For every copy you sell, take the user's info, generate the key and give that to them. Change the checksum with each version so users can't use old keys. If you must, combine that with some type of periodic "phone home" system over the internet, where a list of leaked (and thus rescinded) keys is published.
Keep in mind that phone home systems tend to piss off your honest customers, and it's far worse to burn a good customer with bad copy protection (a sale you'll never get again) than to keep a non-customer from getting a copy of your program (a sale you wouldn't have gotten anyway).
Sure a cracker can get around it, but crackers aren't your customers. You can't stop them or change their motivations. In the end, they're going to do what they're going to do.
Sure a bad customer could give out their key, or use it against the terms of your license (like run it on too many computers). A key could leek out or be stolen, and a bad person could use it, or they could use a cracked version. You can't prevent those things from happening, but you do have the legal system (a social solution) to deal with it when it does.
The important thing is that you avoid spending too much effort on locking things down and that you avoid making things too draconian for your legitimate customers. After all, you write software for your those customers, not for the crackers. Pissing off your customers to make thing just a little harder for the crackers is never worth it.
Yeah, you see, that's the thing. If such a thing existed it would use predefined library functions which would be very easy to detect from a crack... This is exactly why Apple doesn't provide sample code for its App Store protection on Mac: making an open-source library for it makes it easier to crack apps rather than harder. After all, if you implemented something like this you wouldn't add extra protection anymore and the cracker could make a generic crack for all software.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 13 years ago.
Improve this question
I am a technical team leader of a small programming team, working on a project for an external client.
I was recently asked to produce written evaluations of my team members. I feel uncomfortable doing this, because I don't see myself as a management person and never thought of my colleagues much deeper than "A is reliable and B is a lazy bum".
But I am expected to produce more elaborate stuff to be read by actual managers, and my manager hinted that the purpose of this is rather to test my evaluation skills.
Any hints or resources on how to produce a quality evaluation? Are there standardized forms? How should I address this?
Thank you.
I have found that Joel's Professional Development Ladder and this construx site provided great advice on how to start. It helps to understand the various knowledge areas and what developers are expected to know and do. You can then evaluate developers on how competent they are in various knowledge areas and assign them a level accordingly.
You of course have to evaluate their work ethic and attitude etc which have nothing to do with development as such.
First thing, don't be intimidated by the task. Second, you are a team lead, so your opinion of the people counts; it may be a test, but you should be up to it. Third, if you were doing this informally over a coffee and your boss asked you about someone you would probably have no trouble chatting for a few minutes about your observations of them and what you thought were their strengths and weaknesses. That's what you should write down in your review notes.
Ask your boss if there is a standard format - if you are in a large organisation HR might have forms and/or systems in place for these sorts of reviews. Otherwise, just give him a paragraph or two in plain English (or your language of choice) on what you think.
You can add colour to your reports by citing work they have done and where they have succeeded or failed.
Some golden rules...
don't get personal
try and be objective and fair
don't hide the truth, however uncomfortable
Good luck, it's all part of stepping up to be a manager and is fun in a way - your opinion is counting.
Tough question! I would suggest you first look back at evaluations that have been performed by your manager on YOU. This is usually a good example of what you are expected to produce for your team mates. If you have not had any formal evaluation yet, I suggest you look to your HR department, or management for a copy of a standard template for such purposes. Most large companies have them.
Evaluating team members can be tricky, especially as a team leader and not a 'front line' manager. Remember the following,
Be honest, with them and yourself
Evaluate based on performance not gut feeling, or emotion
Never ever evaluate someone better simply because you 'like' them or have empathy for their situation. It always comes back to you in the end.
Edit:
Some further things I thought of, been awhile since I did evals as a team lead..
When evaluating performance, look at not only what the person needs to improve, but also what they have done well. Try to present both sides of the story (even if you feel the person is a lazy bum)
Look at quantifiable results.. what has the person PRODUCED and how useful was it to the team as a whole. Remember, even if they pump out thousands of lines of code, that doesn't mean it was all useful, maintainable or even worth the time.
Good luck!
You could conduct a 360 degree feedback with your team (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/360-degree_feedback), motivating each team member to give feedback to his colleagues (and you).
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
As I've increasingly absorbed Agile thinking into the way I work, yagni ("you aren't going to need it") seems to become more and more important. It seems to me to be one of the most effective rules for filtering out misguided priorities and deciding what not to work on next.
Yet yagni seems to be a concept that is barely whispered about here at SO. I ran the obligatory search, and it only shows up in one question title - and then in a secondary role.
Why is this? Am I overestimating its importance?
Disclaimer. To preempt the responses I'm sure I'll get in objection, let me emphasize that yagni is the opposite of quick-and-dirty. It encourages you to focus your precious time and effort on getting the parts you DO need right.
Here are some off-the-top ongoing questions one might ask.
Are my Unit Tests selected based on user requirements, or framework structure?
Am I installing (and testing and maintaining) Unit Tests that are only there because they fall out of the framework?
How much of the code generated by my framework have I never looked at (but still might bite me one day, even though yagni)?
How much time am I spending working on my tools rather than the user's problem?
When pair-programming, the observer's role value often lies in "yagni".
Do you use a CRUD tool? Does it allow (nay, encourage) you to use it as an _RU_ tool, or a C__D tool, or are you creating four pieces of code (plus four unit tests) when you only need one or two?
TDD has subsumed YAGNI in a way. If you do TDD properly, that is, only write those tests that result in required functionality, then develop the simplest code to pass the test, then you are following the YAGNI principle by default. In my experience, it is only when I get outside the TDD box and start writing code before tests, tests for things that I don't really need, or code that is more than the simplest possible way to pass the test that I violate YAGNI.
In my experience the latter is my most common faux pas when doing TDD -- I tend to jump ahead and start writing code to pass the next test. That often results in me compromising the remaining tests by having a preconceived idea based on my code rather than the requirements of what needs to be tested.
YMMV.
Yagni and KISS (keep it simple, stupid) are essentially the same principle. Unfortunately, I see KISS mentioned about as often as I see "yagni".
In my part of the wilderness, the most common cause of project delays and failures is poor execution of unnecessary components, so I agree with your basic sentiment.
The freedom to change drives YAGNI. In a waterfall project, the mantra is control scope. Scope is controlled by establishing a contract with the customer. Consequently, the customer stuffs all they can think of in the scope document knowing that changes to scope will be difficult once the contract has been signed. As a result, you end up with applications that has a laundry list of features, not a set of features that have value.
With an agile project, the product owner builds a prioritized product backlog. The development team builds features based on priority i.e., value. As a result, the most important stuff get built first. You end up with an application that has features that are valued by the users. The stuff that is not important falls off the list or doesn't get done. That is YAGNI.
While YAGNI is not a practice, it is a result of the prioritized backlog list. The business partner values the flexibility afforded the business given that they can change and reprioritized the product backlog from iteration to iteration. It is enough to explain that YAGNI is the benefit gained when we readily accept change, even late in the process.
The problem I find is that people tend to bucket even writing factories, using DI containers (unless you've already have that in your codebase) under YAGNI. I agree with JB King there. For many people I've worked with YAGNI seems to be the license to cut corners / to write sloppy code.
For example, I was writing a PinPad API for abstracting multiple models/manufacturers' PINPad. I found unless I've the overall structure, I can't write even my Unit Tests. May be I'm not a very seasoned practioner of TDD. I'm sure there'll be differing opinions on whether what I did is YAGNI or not.
I have seen a lot of posts on SO referencing premature optimization which is a form of yagni, or at least ydniy (you don't need it yet).
I don't see YAGNI as the opposite of quick-and-dirty, really. It is doing just what is needed and no more and not planning like the software someone writes has to last 50 years. It may come rarely because there aren't really that many questions to ask around it, at least to my mind. Similar to the "don't repeat yourself" and "keep it simple, stupid" rules that become common but aren't necessarily dissected and analyzed in 101 ways. Some things are simple enough that it is usually gotten soon after doing a little practice. Some things get developed behind the scenes and if you turn around and look you may notice them may be another way to state things.