3 ms·

>I'm currently working in a Java codebase without Lombok and the habit is to make all fields public for record-like objects. It's fine 99% of the time. this is

>I'm currently working in a Java codebase without Lombok and the habit is to make all fields public for record-like objects. It's fine 99% of the time. this is so cool! thanks for sharing that anecdote. trust me, ur the first person who has ever written this publicly. so I hear your argument for getters/setters. And IMHO, all paradigms do have their usecases -probably so do CQRS and everything else. But ultimately, you can refactor using the tools available today. I would (politely) argue that your example is also a notnull situation and perhaps i would have solved it on initialization, versus the way you did it. Ultimately, you can create getter/setter structures in python as well. But in most large codebases, it still ends up being unnecessary.

stickfigure 4y ago
> you can refactor using the tools available Sometimes. You can refactor your own codebase. If you're working with independent modules, or building libraries that you publish to the world, refactor tools will not help you. You can't refactor other people's code. Even in your own monolith, this kind of refactor is not great. You've turned a 1-line logic change into a patch that spans potentially hundreds of files. Reviewers hate that. > a notnull situation and perhaps i would have solved it on initialization You don't always get to decide that. The data may be serialized in from JSON, loaded from a database, imported from some weird EDI system, etc. Maybe the initialization process is not so simple, and spread out all over the codebase (or even just dozens of constructors). > you can create getter/setter structures in python Python is extremely dynamic and while I can't remember how offhand, I would be surprised if you couldn't simply override variable access the way you can with Javascript (eg, add a `get fieldname()` method). So you don't need "getters" the way you do in Java, which makes a distinction between field access and dynamically dispatched functions (and has performance benefits).
- sandGorgon 4y ago
  >Python is extremely dynamic and while I can't remember how offhand, I would be surprised if you couldn't simply override variable access the way you can with Javascript (eg, add a `get fieldname()` method). So you don't need "getters" the way you do in Java, which makes a distinction between field access and dynamically dispatched functions (and has performance benefits). So this is the thing - that there is nothing in python at a language level that enables/disables this. it just doesnt give a private construct. same as in javascript. you can add getters/setters if u want. in fact ECMAScript introduced getters/setters - https://www.w3schools.com/Js/js_object_accessors.asp https://www.w3schools.com/Js/js_object_accessors.asp But the thing is, huge huge codebases exist without private. There's nothing that i can see in java that requires private. not to say, ur not wrong...but so it is with almost all patterns. even CQRS. There is a certain level of complexity when it makes sense. The question is - how early do u enforce this ?
  - stickfigure 4y ago
    > that there is nothing in python at a language level that enables/disables this Yes, there is. `@property` allows you to change a vanilla field to a getter/setter without modifying client code. >> override variable access the way you can with Javascript (eg, add a `get fieldname()` method) > in fact ECMAScript introduced getters/setters That exchange was weird. > huge huge codebases exist without private I'm honestly not quite sure where you're going with that. Huge codebases exist in COBOL too. It sounds like you're trying to argue that the software world doesn't need encapsulation. I disagree. Maybe you took my comment "99% of the time it's fine" the wrong way - 99% isn't good enough. The 1% wastes a lot of time and energy, it's better to have language support for encapuslation. Java's support for encapsulation (getters) is pretty tedious. Lombok and records (too modern for this codebase, unfortunately) fix that. Thus "getters/setters are a nonissue".
    - sandGorgon 4y ago
      i hear you - then let me ask you: what would make Java frameworks better (not the language) ? Not just for existing developers, but also people who are new to the language and are doing the old golang vs java eval.
      - stickfigure 4y ago
        Here's what I generally use when doing greenfield development in Java: https://github.com/gwizard/gwizard https://github.com/gwizard/gwizard I wrote it, so feel free to consider me biased. That said, "wrote" is a strong word, it just glues some other projects together with Guice. Not much actual code there. Which may be the answer to your question - if you asked me what's wrong with other frameworks, "too much code" is a decent answer.
        sandGorgon 4y ago
        this is so so cool! thank you for sharing this. I have been wondering something - wiring different components together and building "up" something. versus take Spring Boot and create a DSL/Lombok-like layer on top which abstracts out the "too much code" and unpleasantness. Like a Nextjs that builds on top of Reactjs. Why the first and not the second ?

stickfigure 4y ago

> you can refactor using the tools available Sometimes. You can refactor your own codebase. If you're working with independent modules, or building libraries that you publish to the world, refactor tools will not help you. You can't refactor other people's code. Even in your own monolith, this kind of refactor is not great. You've turned a 1-line logic change into a patch that spans potentially hundreds of files. Reviewers hate that. > a notnull situation and perhaps i would have solved it on initialization You don't always get to decide that. The data may be serialized in from JSON, loaded from a database, imported from some weird EDI system, etc. Maybe the initialization process is not so simple, and spread out all over the codebase (or even just dozens of constructors). > you can create getter/setter structures in python Python is extremely dynamic and while I can't remember how offhand, I would be surprised if you couldn't simply override variable access the way you can with Javascript (eg, add a `get fieldname()` method). So you don't need "getters" the way you do in Java, which makes a distinction between field access and dynamically dispatched functions (and has performance benefits).

sandGorgon 4y ago
>Python is extremely dynamic and while I can't remember how offhand, I would be surprised if you couldn't simply override variable access the way you can with Javascript (eg, add a `get fieldname()` method). So you don't need "getters" the way you do in Java, which makes a distinction between field access and dynamically dispatched functions (and has performance benefits). So this is the thing - that there is nothing in python at a language level that enables/disables this. it just doesnt give a private construct. same as in javascript. you can add getters/setters if u want. in fact ECMAScript introduced getters/setters - https://www.w3schools.com/Js/js_object_accessors.asp https://www.w3schools.com/Js/js_object_accessors.asp But the thing is, huge huge codebases exist without private. There's nothing that i can see in java that requires private. not to say, ur not wrong...but so it is with almost all patterns. even CQRS. There is a certain level of complexity when it makes sense. The question is - how early do u enforce this ?
- stickfigure 4y ago
  > that there is nothing in python at a language level that enables/disables this Yes, there is. `@property` allows you to change a vanilla field to a getter/setter without modifying client code. >> override variable access the way you can with Javascript (eg, add a `get fieldname()` method) > in fact ECMAScript introduced getters/setters That exchange was weird. > huge huge codebases exist without private I'm honestly not quite sure where you're going with that. Huge codebases exist in COBOL too. It sounds like you're trying to argue that the software world doesn't need encapsulation. I disagree. Maybe you took my comment "99% of the time it's fine" the wrong way - 99% isn't good enough. The 1% wastes a lot of time and energy, it's better to have language support for encapuslation. Java's support for encapsulation (getters) is pretty tedious. Lombok and records (too modern for this codebase, unfortunately) fix that. Thus "getters/setters are a nonissue".
  - sandGorgon 4y ago
    i hear you - then let me ask you: what would make Java frameworks better (not the language) ? Not just for existing developers, but also people who are new to the language and are doing the old golang vs java eval.
    - stickfigure 4y ago
      Here's what I generally use when doing greenfield development in Java: https://github.com/gwizard/gwizard https://github.com/gwizard/gwizard I wrote it, so feel free to consider me biased. That said, "wrote" is a strong word, it just glues some other projects together with Guice. Not much actual code there. Which may be the answer to your question - if you asked me what's wrong with other frameworks, "too much code" is a decent answer.
      - sandGorgon 4y ago
        this is so so cool! thank you for sharing this. I have been wondering something - wiring different components together and building "up" something. versus take Spring Boot and create a DSL/Lombok-like layer on top which abstracts out the "too much code" and unpleasantness. Like a Nextjs that builds on top of Reactjs. Why the first and not the second ?