4 ms·

I love the way people take their narrow range of experience and over generalize it to everything. Bonus points for having a blog or maybe a patreon to tell ev

I love the way people take their narrow range of experience and over generalize it to everything. Bonus points for having a blog or maybe a patreon to tell everyone how it really is. We have a million flavors of the month but in the end it doesn't really matter. Pick a flavor and there will be teams that are successful and teams that are not. No silver bullet will make the non-successful teams magically turn into successful ones. "I/We failed with <insert language feature>" never generalizes to "<insert language feature>" is bad. Then the community constantly sits there and acts like a bunch of geniuses because some programming pattern has been discovered.. except it's 50 years old.

vram22 3y ago
Ha ha, yes, happens all the time. In this case, published in a book 30 years ago, at least: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40005520 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40005520
- reactordev 3y ago
  Ahhh good 'ol XP/Gang of 4. Never ceases to be referenced. (for good reason)
- ben7799 3y ago
  Pretty sure it was in Effective Java and Design Patterns in Java 20+ years ago as well since Java is the language that gets picked on so frequently for this stuff.
  - fuzztester 3y ago
    He he. Java and patterns, Java and frameworks (mumble Spring mumble IoC mumble dependency injection), Java and factories and builders, mumble <buzzword> ...
ruszki 3y ago
> "I/We failed with <insert language feature>" never generalizes to "<insert language feature>" is bad. I thought the same for decades, then I met Groovy and Grails. Of course, it’s not bad in an absolute sense (IMHO that doesn’t make any sense), but when some problem can be found only at runtime, when any proper compiler would catch that compile time, it’s hard to argue that it’s a good direction. Especially when TypeScript made it quite obvious what’s possible only with simple type checking.
- maleldil 3y ago
  > TypeScript made it quite obvious what’s possible only with simple type checking. Typescript's type system is anything but simple.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

vram22 3y ago

Ha ha, yes, happens all the time. In this case, published in a book 30 years ago, at least: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40005520 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40005520

reactordev 3y ago
Ahhh good 'ol XP/Gang of 4. Never ceases to be referenced. (for good reason)
ben7799 3y ago
Pretty sure it was in Effective Java and Design Patterns in Java 20+ years ago as well since Java is the language that gets picked on so frequently for this stuff.
- fuzztester 3y ago
  He he. Java and patterns, Java and frameworks (mumble Spring mumble IoC mumble dependency injection), Java and factories and builders, mumble <buzzword> ...

ruszki 3y ago

> "I/We failed with <insert language feature>" never generalizes to "<insert language feature>" is bad. I thought the same for decades, then I met Groovy and Grails. Of course, it’s not bad in an absolute sense (IMHO that doesn’t make any sense), but when some problem can be found only at runtime, when any proper compiler would catch that compile time, it’s hard to argue that it’s a good direction. Especially when TypeScript made it quite obvious what’s possible only with simple type checking.

maleldil 3y ago
> TypeScript made it quite obvious what’s possible only with simple type checking. Typescript's type system is anything but simple.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]