3 ms·
I'm not sure I'd take design advice from someone who thought attr.ib and attr.s were a good idea. On the other hand he points out that DDD is a vacuous cult, wh
by da39a3ee 1y ago
I'm not sure I'd take design advice from someone who thought attr.ib and attr.s were a good idea. On the other hand he points out that DDD is a vacuous cult, which is true.
- wilkystyle 1y ago> I'm not sure I'd take design advice from someone who thought attr.ib and attr.s were a good idea Can you elaborate?
- hynek 1y agothat's a reference to my attrs library which is what data classes are based on. It originally used @attr.s class C: x = attr.ib() as its main api (with `attr.attrs` and `attr.attrib` as serious business aliases so you didn't have to use it). That API was always polarizing, some loved it, some hated it. I will point out though, that it predates type hints and it was an effective way to declare classes with little "syntax noise" which made it easy to write but also easy to read, because you used the import name as part of the APIs. Here is more context: https://www.attrs.org/en/stable/names.html https://www.attrs.org/en/stable/names.html I REGRET NOTHING
- ericvsmith 1y agoFor what it’s worth, I was in the “loved it” camp. (I’m the author of dataclasses, and I owe an immeasurable debt to Hynek).
- sspies 1y agoThank you for creating dataclasses!
- g958198 1y agoif it's good enough for glyph, it's good enough for me
- skydhash 1y agoDDD is nice especially in the first phase. All the concepts are actually rehashed from earlier principles. There’s nothing fully new there.
- switchbak 1y agoI’d call out patternitis and over-OOPification way before I’d criticize DDD. Yes, the latter can go too far, but the two former cases are abused on a much more frequent basis. Happily the pattern crazyness has died down a lot though.