4 ms·

This reminds me of this classic post that was discussed many times here on HN. Maybe newer readers will enjoy it. https://gwern.net/doc/cs/2005-09-30-smith-why

• amanzi 3y ago
  I guess that was written before the Hammer-as-a-Service craze.
• ffsm8 3y ago
  It was as misguided then as it is now. What this post bemoans didn't actually occur, really. What did happen was that the big framework gave you increasingly more entrypoints into how the application was constructed. But there always was a way to just go with defaults if you didn't want to adjust anything (at least in Java-Land, which this one specifically calls out for this behavior) Wherever a framework should give the developers the option to adjust things to such a degree is another question that wasn't raised by this post. It just claims that you needed the increasingly silly factories to construct your application, which isn't true, as they were always optional.
• binary132 3y ago
  I was kinda thinking maybe the LLM was rooting through its “comical software engineering discussions about enterprise abstraction pathology” networks when it wrote these responses.