4 ms·

Disagree with "Decoupling" never used or "if used, they are pulling a fast one on you". It not only will help make his point of decreasing line-count, but more

Disagree with "Decoupling" never used or "if used, they are pulling a fast one on you". It not only will help make his point of decreasing line-count, but more importantly, it is one of the main principles in achieving DRY-ness (both code-level and more importantly, architectural level DRY-ness). I'll even go further and say that if you're not thinking about it all the time, you're most likely doing it wrong.

Maro 15y ago
I think he didn't mean that it's never used, just that it's never actually said in the real world. My experience confirms this.
- fuzzythinker 15y ago
  Yup, my bad, he actually said "people never say". But the way he presented it, seemed like he's opposed of it. But I still think it should be mentioned more in the industry so more developers are aware of it and think about it more often than not. EDIT: Can't reply to Tommabeeng's comment (probably too deep). Yup, and I agree with the presenter's main point - that classes are not necessary in many situations, even for decoupling.
  - Tommabeeng 15y ago
    He does say about coupling & cohesion that "if used, they are pulling a fast one on you". That's wrong. I like the key to his talk but the plague of large complicated systems is exactly coupling and incoherence. Classes are NOT necessarily the way to achieve these.
    - drucken 15y ago
      As others have implied already, he could just as easily have been referring to the words. I think his intention was to explain that these are the same words (mostly from academia and taken up with reckless abandon via language architectures like Java) that may be thrown around by some to create the code mess (anti-pythonic) in the first place.
tobiasSoftware 15y ago
Yeah I disagreed with that as well. Though I think in classrooms it's "Decoupling," but in the business world they usually say "Model View Controller."

Maro 15y ago

I think he didn't mean that it's never used, just that it's never actually said in the real world. My experience confirms this.

fuzzythinker 15y ago
Yup, my bad, he actually said "people never say". But the way he presented it, seemed like he's opposed of it. But I still think it should be mentioned more in the industry so more developers are aware of it and think about it more often than not. EDIT: Can't reply to Tommabeeng's comment (probably too deep). Yup, and I agree with the presenter's main point - that classes are not necessary in many situations, even for decoupling.
- Tommabeeng 15y ago
  He does say about coupling & cohesion that "if used, they are pulling a fast one on you". That's wrong. I like the key to his talk but the plague of large complicated systems is exactly coupling and incoherence. Classes are NOT necessarily the way to achieve these.
  - drucken 15y ago
    As others have implied already, he could just as easily have been referring to the words. I think his intention was to explain that these are the same words (mostly from academia and taken up with reckless abandon via language architectures like Java) that may be thrown around by some to create the code mess (anti-pythonic) in the first place.

tobiasSoftware 15y ago

Yeah I disagreed with that as well. Though I think in classrooms it's "Decoupling," but in the business world they usually say "Model View Controller."