4 ms·
Ha ha no. Sorry to disappoint :) Personal experience. We have some java code from 15-17 yrs back. About the time “design patterns” and all the other “pattern”
by gautamdivgi 4y ago
Ha ha no. Sorry to disappoint :)
Personal experience. We have some java code from 15-17 yrs back. About the time “design patterns” and all the other “pattern” stuff was big in everyones mind. It’s a mess of abstraction for simple tasks. Couple all that with the fact that class instantiating is possible via reflection and at this point people maintaining it have kinda given up. It works - don’t touch it.
This isn’t an indictment of Java. Just resume driven design.
- rhacker 4y agoThat's why I left Java 5 years (after like a 12 year career in it) ago and plan on never getting another Java job. It's just making classes have "some" kind of use no matter what the task is, there's no coding to solve problems, it's coding to make structure.
- gautamdivgi 4y agoTo be fair, I’ve seen this in c++ as well. Building an entire structure of classes like “java” and then using “design patterns” on those abstractions. All to implement a simple 7 step socket communication protocol. It was a “wtf is going on here moment”?
- rhacker 4y agoI was also part of it. I did my own share of - well if we design it this way then we can have a second "type" that does X with the same interface. And it just keeps on iterating like that. It's still a useful pattern, but often at least in my own case, overused for really trivial stuff. Programmers are highly trained like to see the world as if everything can be cast the same way. While that IS a good way to see a large variety of software problems, when you isolate down to a companies' use cases, it quickly goes away in the pragmatic sense. It then becomes something the company is paying for because they chose Java and Java developers like that sort of thing.