5 ms·
Personally I kind of like dumb models. Dumb models means I don't have to think too hard about "a.affect(b)" vs "b.be_affected_by(a)". I can just write functions
by resonious 3y ago
Personally I kind of like dumb models. Dumb models means I don't have to think too hard about "a.affect(b)" vs "b.be_affected_by(a)". I can just write functions that do what I want right now. "do_my_thing(a, b)". No reason to be doing anything else when programming. If you have people making controllers inherit each other just to share functionality then they're probably brainwashed by OOP. Stuff like inheritance and mixins only exist to solve fake problems that make no sense outside of C# or Java. To me, singletons and plain-ole-functions are pretty easy to deal with in most languages - I just ask the editor where a function gets used or where it's defined. If your language doesn't support that kind of thing (looking at you, Ruby) then again that's another problem caused by tooling.
- pas 3y agodata objects have to be dumb, the managers don't. both C# and Java can be used in a sane way, but ... at what cost, right!? C# is tied too much to the regular MS circus, and it's just a few more years and Java will finally be great! oh wait. of course, actual, real-world walking-talking problems can be solved in both of these ecosystems, but ... almost always the real constraints are not the actual language. (... trying to do HFT with a JIT-less language, or some other faux pas)