Good refactoring vs. bad refactoring

Post by ahoka » Wed, Aug 21, 2024, 1:52 PM UTC

vips7L wrote: post #75

Terr_ wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just having some fun with bikeshedding here: Yeah, that could work but IMO in a big/international system the responsibility should ideally live elsewhere, since: * You may need to determine adulthood for a different jurisdiction than where the person currently resides. Their citizenship may be elsewhere, or you may be running a report that expects "adulthood" to be by some other region's standards, etc. * Sometimes t…

Yes this is just extreme bike-shedding at this point. But none of this is impossible with more OO principles, like interfaces: class User { // Convenience function to check if the user is an adult in their current location boolean isAdult() { return this.location.isAdult(this); } boolean isOfDrinkingAge() { return this.location.isOfDrinkingAge(this); } } interface Location { boolean isAdult(User u); boolean isOfDrink…

Post by sidmitra » Wed, Aug 21, 2024, 3:08 PM UTC

8n4vidtmkvmk wrote: post #121

sidmitra wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had success with strategies at introducing some abstractions/patterns at my current place(doing this alone for a enterprise SaaS company with 200-ish devs). It's weird that we don't teach these or talk about them in software engineering(AFAIK). I see them being re-invented all the time. To borrow from medicine: First step is to always stop the `stop the hemorrhage`, then clean the wound, and then protect the wou…

> test cases might have owners I hope the owner is the same person that owns the code.

Post by vips7L » Wed, Aug 21, 2024, 4:22 PM UTC

ahoka wrote: post #131

vips7L wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes this is just extreme bike-shedding at this point. But none of this is impossible with more OO principles, like interfaces: class User { // Convenience function to check if the user is an adult in their current location boolean isAdult() { return this.location.isAdult(this); } boolean isOfDrinkingAge() { return this.location.isOfDrinkingAge(this); } } interface Location { boolean isAdult(User u); boolean isOfDrink…

Wow, thanks for proving that OOP was a mistake.

Post by xigoi » Wed, Aug 21, 2024, 9:05 PM UTC

nuancebydefault wrote: post #93

FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The metaphor, I think, is that your code is a mathematical function, and, to be even more specific and "toy example" about it, let's say it's a polynomial. If the old code was x^2 + x z + y x + y z then you notice that you can express the same polynomial as: (x + y)*(x + z) It's still the same polynomial, but you "separated concerns", turning it into a product of two simpler factors. Similar ideas apply to sets of tu…

If you change the polynomial, you change the order of calculations and hence change behaviour. You might get overflows in case of integers or different precision in case of floats. Nice to learn where the word originates from. Often the meaning of words change over time. E.g. today no horses need involved in bootstrapping.

Post by kazinator » Wed, Aug 21, 2024, 10:34 PM UTC

Joker_vD wrote: post #73

Jean-Papoulos wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because they are. Functional code is more readable. And if you look back, basically all advances in programming languages have been about "making stuff more readable". Thus, for loops (for this usage) are "old".

> Functional code is more readable. There is no way that name: R.pipe(R.prop('name'), R.toUpper), age: R.prop('age'), isAdult: R.always(true) is more readable than name: user.name.toUpperCase(), age: user.age, isAdult: true