61–70 of 82 posts
I guess by now it's pretty settled down and unanimous that SOLID is an extremely bad way to organize your code, and that Clean isn't very good and has about the same odds of helping or harming you. But extending the complaint to all acronyms isn't helpful. ACID, OLAP, EBITDA, etc are perfectly good names with clear meanings that can be easily discovered.
Uncle Bob is a snake oil salesman. Not sure he realizes it himself though. The whole SOLID, OOP design patterns era was one of the worst things to have happened to programming. I always thought I was the one that sucked but now I'm absolutely certain that whole zeitgeist was total crap.
What do you prefer?
For some actual code and comparison of principles behind Clean Code see: https://github.com/johnousterhout/aposd-vs-clean-code
A definite Uncle!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, DRY, WET, YAGNI are useful ideas.
Yep. That's what they are. Useful ideas. The issue is treating them as rules or excuses for early/unnecesary abstractions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh please don't confuse it with an aversion to formalism. It's quite the opposite. ACID, CAP and others were fantastic research when they came up. But now they are outdated and reductive of the real implications of running databases and distributed systems. That's why I mentioned PACELC being one of my favorite design principles in this matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACELC_design_principle My criticism of thi…
Humans like acronyms. You see them all over. If it seems like programmers like them more than others it is only because you are in that field and don't think about other fields. (did you know that Radar, and Scuba are acronyms? probably most readers do as soon as I pointed it out but if asked to come up with a non-programming acronym would have used others)
Americans, mostly. I don't really know why but acronyms are a very american thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you prefer?
KISS, YAGNI, Program with intent, functional style.
It you look at most of SOLID it is about building little pieces that eventually will fit together and rules to avoid incompatibilities when the world you built comes together.
This sort of object oriented programming was doomed to fail because it requires thoughtful world building and not a direct assault on the ticket you were assigned. It you look at most of SOLID it is about building little pieces that eventually will fit together and rules to avoid incompatibilities when the world you built comes together.
This sort of object oriented programming was doomed to fail because it requires thoughtful world building and not a direct assault on the ticket you were assigned. It you look at most of SOLID it is about building little pieces that eventually will fit together and rules to avoid incompatibilities when the world you built comes together.
What is most of SOLID?
This comes out in the practical world in being able to make Java libraries that don't need to be recompiled or redistributed because of changes to other parts.