3 ms·
I've always thought that gem's a bit silly. It makes sense to think in terms of state machines, but to code them explicitly?
by lgeek 15y ago
I've always thought that gem's a bit silly. It makes sense to think in terms of state machines, but to code them explicitly?
- pygy_ 15y agoYet another misteriously killed post, by someone who's not deadbanned: In [1] , fleitz [2] wrote Explicitly using a state machine often yields benefits in terms of reusability and clarity. The state machine pattern also works really well with async code where it quickly becomes unapparent what's going on. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2650347 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2650347 [2] http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=fleitz http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=fleitz
- 6ren 15y agoWeird, that's one of the most insightful comment here. Why would it be killed?
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- fleitz 15y agoExplicitly using a state machine often yields benefits in terms of reusability and clarity. The state machine pattern also works really well with async code where it quickly becomes unapparent what's going on.
- Stormbringer 15y agoThe same can be said of any of the lesser patterns. People who turn _everything_ into a Singleton for instance. Or who want everything to be a Factory or a Command.