3 ms·

this is the classic over abstraction problem so that you can change things behind an interface at some point down the line if you ever need to while being total

this is the classic over abstraction problem so that you can change things behind an interface at some point down the line if you ever need to while being totally opaque to any consuming code. A lot of languages force you to start with this from day one, unless you want to go refactor everything to use an interface later on, so people just do it even when there will literally never be a reason to (and for testability, sometimes). The cool thing about Go is the interface system is inverted kind of like duck-typing, so if you write purely idiomatic Go, then the thing receiving an arg in a function call is the one specifying the interface it must meet, rather than the implementing code having to declare every interface that some implementation meets. People screw this up a lot though, especially if they came from Java/C# backgrounds.

diarrhea 2y ago
Do you have a concrete example by any chance?
- devjab 2y ago
  Most C# education will teach you to always make an interface for everything for some reason. Even in academia they’ll teach CS students to do this and well… it means there is an entire industry of people who think that over-engineering everything with needless abstractions is best practice. It is what it is though. At least it’s fairly contained within the C# community in my part of the world.
  - mdructor 2y ago
    Isn't that "for some reason" in C# being it's the standard way of doing dependency injection and being able to unit test/mock objects? I've found it easier to work in C# codebases that just drank the Microsoft Kool-Aid with "Clean architecture" instead of Frankenstein-esque C# projects that decidedly could do it better or didn't care or know better. Abstraction/design patterns can be abused, but in C#, "too many interfaces" doesn't seem that problematic.
    - devjab 2y ago
      I agree with you on this, my issue is mainly when they bring this thinking with them into other languages. I can easily avoid working with C# (I spent a decade working with it and I’d prefer to never work with it again), but it’s just such a pain in the ass to onboard developers coming from that world. It may be the same for Java as GP mentioned it along with C#, but they tend to stay within their own little domain in my part of the world. By contrast C# is mostly used by mid-sized stagnant to failing companies which means C# developers job hop a lot. There is also a lot of them because mid-sized companies that end up failing love the shit out of C# for some reason and there are soooo many of those around here. Basically we have to un-learn almost everything a new hire knows about development or they’ve solely worked with C#.
    - jdc0589 2y ago
      > I've found it easier to work in C# codebases that just drank the Microsoft Kool-Aid with "Clean architecture" instead of Frankenstein-esque C# projects that decidedly could do it better or didn't care or know better. I agree, for the most part. There's a little bit of a balance: if you just drink the kool-aid for top level stuff, but resist the urge to enter interface inception all the way down, you can get a decent balance. e.g. on modern dotnetcore. literally nothing is stopping you from registering factory functions for concrete types without an interface with the out-of-the-box dependency injection setup. You keep the most important part, inversion of control. `services.AddTransient<MyConcreteClass>(provider => { return new MyConcreteClass(blah,blah,blah)});`
- figassis 2y ago
  Basically if the Jump function takes an Animal interface, the package that defines the jump function is the one that defines the Animal.Jump method. So if you provide it with whatever entity that has this method, it will just work. You don’t have to define the Animal interface in your Cat package. But if your cat does not Jump, it won’t be accepted. Of course you can also pass in a box that Jumps.

diarrhea 2y ago

Do you have a concrete example by any chance?

devjab 2y ago
Most C# education will teach you to always make an interface for everything for some reason. Even in academia they’ll teach CS students to do this and well… it means there is an entire industry of people who think that over-engineering everything with needless abstractions is best practice. It is what it is though. At least it’s fairly contained within the C# community in my part of the world.
- mdructor 2y ago
  Isn't that "for some reason" in C# being it's the standard way of doing dependency injection and being able to unit test/mock objects? I've found it easier to work in C# codebases that just drank the Microsoft Kool-Aid with "Clean architecture" instead of Frankenstein-esque C# projects that decidedly could do it better or didn't care or know better. Abstraction/design patterns can be abused, but in C#, "too many interfaces" doesn't seem that problematic.
  - devjab 2y ago
    I agree with you on this, my issue is mainly when they bring this thinking with them into other languages. I can easily avoid working with C# (I spent a decade working with it and I’d prefer to never work with it again), but it’s just such a pain in the ass to onboard developers coming from that world. It may be the same for Java as GP mentioned it along with C#, but they tend to stay within their own little domain in my part of the world. By contrast C# is mostly used by mid-sized stagnant to failing companies which means C# developers job hop a lot. There is also a lot of them because mid-sized companies that end up failing love the shit out of C# for some reason and there are soooo many of those around here. Basically we have to un-learn almost everything a new hire knows about development or they’ve solely worked with C#.
  - jdc0589 2y ago
    > I've found it easier to work in C# codebases that just drank the Microsoft Kool-Aid with "Clean architecture" instead of Frankenstein-esque C# projects that decidedly could do it better or didn't care or know better. I agree, for the most part. There's a little bit of a balance: if you just drink the kool-aid for top level stuff, but resist the urge to enter interface inception all the way down, you can get a decent balance. e.g. on modern dotnetcore. literally nothing is stopping you from registering factory functions for concrete types without an interface with the out-of-the-box dependency injection setup. You keep the most important part, inversion of control. `services.AddTransient<MyConcreteClass>(provider => { return new MyConcreteClass(blah,blah,blah)});`
figassis 2y ago
Basically if the Jump function takes an Animal interface, the package that defines the jump function is the one that defines the Animal.Jump method. So if you provide it with whatever entity that has this method, it will just work. You don’t have to define the Animal interface in your Cat package. But if your cat does not Jump, it won’t be accepted. Of course you can also pass in a box that Jumps.