4 ms·
Yes please. More functional programming, less OOP, or if OOP then less design patterns and if possible no documentation or tests. I make a living from untangli
by trilila 7y ago
Yes please. More functional programming, less OOP, or if OOP then less design patterns and if possible no documentation or tests.
I make a living from untangling poorly written code, and these would mean more work for me.
Oh please use an obscure or low traction programming language as well, preferably an archaic one.
- erk__ 7y agoFunctional programming does not nessesary mean not OOP code, for example look at Ocaml or F#
- twic 7y agoI suspect that for trilila's purposes, that's even better! Now, if only there was some way to incorporate logic programming into OCaml as well ...
- brightball 7y agoOOP is usually what creates the tangled mess by its very nature.
- trilila 7y agoYup. And tests and documentation are just overhead.
- weberc2 7y ago> Yup. And tests and documentation are just overhead. Why post here at all if you’re just here to troll and start flame wars?
- trilila 7y agoMy intentions are neither to start flame wars, nor to troll, sorry if I came across that way. I am being sarcastic against posts contrarian to common practice only for the sake of being contrarian, this being one. If a current good practice is to write tests, there will be a post against writing tests. If a current good practice is to write documentation, there will be a post against writing documentation. If OOP then functional. In my consulting job I do have to untangle code written using contrarian practices, obscure languages, and other temporary fads. Not that Haskell is not a good language, or that functional programming is a bad approach, but rather that neither are a secret weapon against anything else but specific problems these are good at solving. Good luck to those companies scaling to more than a handful of devs - they could also hire people to migrate them the right language for the task at hand.
- weberc2 7y agoI think the communication problem here is that you’re arguing against the notion that FP is a silver bullet, but no one here has made that argument, so it sounds like you’re arguing that OOP is superior. I buck pretty hard at this because everything uniquely OOP (e.g., inheritance) is generally only problematic. And OOPproponents love pointing out that good OOP programmers don’t use these bad features/idioms/etc or they only use them where they don’t cause problems, in which case their code ends up looking the same as it would in any non-OOP imperative language (e.g., Go).
- weberc2 7y agoRight. I’m not an FP advocate by any means, but the worst tangled messes always involve inheritance and hanging methods arbitrarily off of data classes. Yes, you can write clean OOP code, but you end up avoiding everything that is characteristic to OOP and your code ends up more closely resembling idiomatic Go, Rust, or C.
- lloydatkinson 7y agoOK I was agreeing with the "More functional programming, less OOP, or if OOP then less design patterns" part but then "if possible no documentation or tests". What the hell is that? You want people to not write tests or make documentation? (Totally ignoring the fact function code is easier to test and document anyway). I'd hate to work with your code. There's probably no point me even trying to find out what you mean because I suspect its some totally ridicilous argument that only seeks to annoy whoever reads it. Nice bait.
- weberc2 7y agoHe’s trolling. He’s lumping in FP with bad programming practices like not writing tests or docs because he allegedly gets paid to “clean up code”.