Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Software Architecture Guide

martinfowler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 303 posts

Re: Software Architecture Guide

#221

Post by lonelappde »

Spearchucker wrote: post #198
jbmsf wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm definitely guilty of using and promoting anemic models. I find that teams have a hard time deciding whether logic is service or domain or whatever and gravitate towards putting everything in one place if domain objects are allowed to be at all smart. On the other hand, people do well with the rule that logic belongs in procedural layers with clear names and some sort of maximum size/complexity. I also find that t…

First, anemic models work well in service contexts. You can't send a business rule from a web page to a web service as part of a data entity. And so such models have a valid place in the world. Micro services are still services. As such we always validate data crossing a trust boundary - whether monolith or micro service. The rules to do that validation cannot travel with the data. So guilt because anemic strikes me…

You wouldn't send a business rule from a web page, you'd put it in the domain model on the server.

The web page has a UI model, not a domain model.

Re: Software Architecture Guide

#222

Post by [deleted] »

_57jb wrote: post #218
Ozzie_osman wrote: post #66

Lots of hate in this thread.. People asking for proof: what sort of evidence would convince you? I take these blog posts, apply it to my experience, and take what I think makes sense. Sometimes, an idea will solve an obvious pain I've had. Sometimes, an idea will show me a pain I didn't know I have. Sometimes I disagree with the idea because it won't work for me. That's fine. I'm still much better off thanks to this…

There are many arguments that sound logical on their face but completely miss the mark. Laffer curve is one that comes to mind immediately. The saying goes: "It can be explained to congress in 6 minutes and used for 6 months." It can be argued (with data) that it failed. Martin Fowler is no doubt a smart and greatly respected person in this industry. Saying something qualitatively doesn't mean there isn't quantifiabl…

[deleted]

Re: Software Architecture Guide

#223

Post by lonelappde »

dvlsg wrote: post #149

His biggest contribution may be the documentation and defining the vocabulary, but when he defines a pattern with a word that has an obvious negative connotation ("anemic"), it feels manipulative. A while ago I was told by members of a separate team that I was writing the core of my javascript application incorrectly. I was following "functional core, imperative shell"[1] and intentionally separating my data from my…

OO vs Functional is a religious debate that will never be solved. It's like Catholics and Protestants. Fowler is from the Church of OO (Smalltalk).

Re: Software Architecture Guide

#224

Post by inopinatus »

blub wrote: post #158
Ozzie_osman wrote: post #66

Lots of hate in this thread.. People asking for proof: what sort of evidence would convince you? I take these blog posts, apply it to my experience, and take what I think makes sense. Sometimes, an idea will solve an obvious pain I've had. Sometimes, an idea will show me a pain I didn't know I have. Sometimes I disagree with the idea because it won't work for me. That's fine. I'm still much better off thanks to this…

If you want to see how a properly referenced text looks like, pick any of the following: * Code Complete - McConnell * The Economics of Software Quality - Capers Jones * Facts and Fallacies of Software Engineering - Robert Glass * Making Software - Oram & Wilson ... and there are many others. Not all references have survived the test of time, L. Bossavit describes in his book " Leprechauns of Software Engineering" ho…

Referencing and evidence has never been a benchmark requirement for works of philosophy.

Re: Software Architecture Guide

#225

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

snorkasaurus wrote: post #169
proc0 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like saying no one can be an artist because they're not a member of the official artist club. I'm sure the term engineer outdates any professional association.

Actually it's just being respectful. I'm not an engineer, but I work with a lot of engineers who actually have the qualifications to call themselves engineers, so if I call myself one, I'm essentially lying.

I am an Engineer, in that my degree is in engineering, and my job is in engineering.

I am not a Professional Engineer, in that I have not taken the Fundamentals of Engineering exam, passed, worked for at least 4 years under a Professional Engineer, and then taken the Principles and Practice of Engineering exam. So I can't put EIT or PE after my name, stamp projects which require it, or operate as a PE in any state.

Re: Software Architecture Guide

#226

Post by extra_rice »

vbezhenar wrote: post #217
jeswin wrote: post #98

I looked at this thread a while back and closed the window, hoping that those early comments don't influence the younger practitioners who are on HN. As someone nearing 40 (mainly doing consulting work around boring business apps for a long time), my view is that Martin Folwer's biggest contribution is indeed the documentation, and defining the vocabulary to enable discussion around frequently encountered (but perhap…

I know one guy who thinks that Fowler is wrong in very large number of points. He works as an architect in big company now (FAANG) and he did some great projects before, so I certainly trust him. For example he thinks that anemic model is the right way to do and putting methods into data objects is wrong. Unfortunately he does not want to write a book yet, so I can't reveal anything, but I just want to underline that…

> I just want to underline that a good engineer should not blindly trust anything, even if it seems to be written by a well received author.

Doesn't this also apply to the opinions of your friend who works at a FAANG? How do you judge between theirs and Fowler's view points?

Re: Software Architecture Guide

#227

Post by onemoresoop »

blub wrote: post #179
Barrin92 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Your objections are invalid; one does not need to be better at a task than an individual in order to criticize them. Asking for references and proof is perfectly legitimate, at least if we want to approach our discipline more as engineering and less as "Strunk & White" as someone comically suggested in another comment Software development, as often as comparisons are made to engineering or science is neither. It's a…

Software development does have a certain Darwinian character - whatever survives and thrives can't be wrong. Embracing this seems misguided, because as software becomes more complex, it's no longer enough to have software blacksmiths banging away with their software hammers and unit testing the end result into a releasable shape. Teams working on high-availability, high-reliability software know this and take a rigor…

Not sure I agree. One example. Theres a lot of mainframe code still in production, it survived and it’s still doing its job to this day. The reason it survived is because replacing it is very very costly.

Re: Software Architecture Guide

#228

Post by sidlls »

blub wrote: post #161
jeswin wrote: post #98

I looked at this thread a while back and closed the window, hoping that those early comments don't influence the younger practitioners who are on HN. As someone nearing 40 (mainly doing consulting work around boring business apps for a long time), my view is that Martin Folwer's biggest contribution is indeed the documentation, and defining the vocabulary to enable discussion around frequently encountered (but perhap…

You're completely off-topic. Nobody's mentioning CQRS or anemic models. This is an article about architecture with zero references to other authors, studies or proof of any kind. It presents several graphs without any supporting evidence. => it's absolutely normal to request evidence for those claims. This is software engineering, not software literature, where we try to guess what the author meant and marvel in awe.…

Too much of this industry is driven by fads and personalities. You're exactly correct, of course, but I don't think your point will be well received.

Re: Software Architecture Guide

#230

Post by dang »

2_listerine_pls wrote: post #105
Ozzie_osman wrote: post #66

Lots of hate in this thread.. People asking for proof: what sort of evidence would convince you? I take these blog posts, apply it to my experience, and take what I think makes sense. Sometimes, an idea will solve an obvious pain I've had. Sometimes, an idea will show me a pain I didn't know I have. Sometimes I disagree with the idea because it won't work for me. That's fine. I'm still much better off thanks to this…

ok, then. I will ask for no proof and believe in anything He writes.

Please don't post unsubstantive comments here.
Post reply on HN