Its possible you'll disagree with me on some of these and I'd like to understand why. That said, I'm not interested in specific projects where these are a bad idea but for an understanding about why these shouldn't be the default.
- Be explicit about your requirements. Don't automatically detect features, dependencies, or environment related issues. It is easier to change this later to make things more "magical" than go back and figure out what you need.
- Namespaces are good: even if you think you'll only ever need one. Its easier to modify in the future, versioning, etc.
- Errors ought to error. Warning ought to error or not exist. It is generally unhelpful to have noise in your output that you do nothing with. If a warning isn't meaningful, disable it.
- Keep scope local and private. Prefer hiding functions and information from the outside unless you have to decided to make this an API.
- Naming your first version as a "v1" and label it as such. During rewrites, migrations, or related issues prefer versions rather than names such as "next" or "new". There will likely be many "nexts" and only one v2.
- Structured is better than unstructured. Similar to the point about explicitness: it is easier to go from structured to unstructured than vice versa.
- Fixed is better than editable. Don't let people change things unless there is a reason to. This also applies to code (immutable is better than mutable).
- Don't rely on people not making mistakes. Even if you have perfect people, they might be tired, have something in their eye, misremember a fact, or otherwise be operating at a sub-optimal state.
- Name same things the same and different things differently. Use, and accept, the same formats for the same thing at all layers of the stack. As a counter example ruby outputs missing gems as name-version but gem(1) expects name:version.
This is a work in progress document and I'll try and update it over time