NGL I was on board at the first line. He lost me quickly after though
Just build whatever you want on prod and disappear after the deadline so they can never ask you to update your code
Sorry the developer you are calling is out of scope.
That’s great! I wouldn’t want to work for him anyway.
Good riddance.
Software craftsman
Fart sniffer detected
Yeah, I threw up in my mouth a little when I read that.
Am I wrong or does that title he’s given himself directly contradict his dislike of code ownership? Or is it just he assumes he deserves credit for the code written by any of his subordinates?
that particular point likely refers to the fact that he prefers shared ownership: ie nobody should be “the one you go to for X part of the codebase”
Code ownership implies that 1) changes to that code are bottlenecked/gatekept by its “owner”; 2) code is siloed and there’s poor organizational collaboration culture.
“I am enabled to seek out the needed background and change what I need to move forward” vs “that’s not ‘our/my’ code, we can’t touch it. Let’s file a DEP ticket against that team and wait a few months”
When you don’t have a downvote button, all you get is an echo chamber
He didn’t rule out BASIC so he good in my books.
Ew…
That’s: 10 PRINT “Ew…”
20 GOTO 10
Whatever this guy supposedly architects, it ain’t software.
Golang outside of infrastructure
What does that even mean?
He wants all his infrastructure to be pure golang.
Devops/IaaS/Kubernetes stuff.
He’s missing out on HUGO, Gin, Surf and Ebitengine just to name a few.
Lol. Let’s ban accountability, refactoring, and debugging, never work alone, never coordinate, avoid productivity, and refuse ownership—then scream when things break, don’t integrate, and fall behind schedule.
“This is all your fault!” built-in. Why didn’t you intuitively know what myX is supposed to do and how it’s used?
Provocation just for “engagement” really. 102 comments so, to some degree, it works.
Let’s ban
overshot your mark. maybe you misunderstood what you read and that’s why you’re so needlessly het up.
I don’t see any ban of accountability, refactoring or debugging, coordination, or endorsement of screaming.
I recognize most of these as specific antipatterns that get adopted because some manager read a blog or no one actually had a clue was “agile” meant.
I recognize most of these as specific antipatterns that get adopted because some manager read a blog
Go ahead. Point out the anti-pattern baggage.
There are enough coders on here from before the post-dot-com made mentors extinct that I’m sure they’d love your specificity.
There are two types of software engineers: those who are anxious and those who are narcissistic and grandiose. This guy is easy to place in the latter category.
I was so happy when I got a job working with a guy who was super chill and a genius to boot, such an impossible combination to find.
Our mantra was pretty much do the best possible thing to reach the widest possible audience, nothing is off the table and no user is left behind completely. I learned such a wide variety of skills there. It went great for nearly a decade before everything went to shit because my guy had left and I was left to deal with a 3-1 managerial hell.
No mutable types? So like… no lists? no for … i++?
There are non-mutable lists and every other data type.
https://docs.scala-lang.org/overviews/collections-2.13/overview.html
“for… i++” is easily replaced with a foreach, range, iterable, etc… in any language of reasonable capability.
I get that there are alternative approaches, but I don’t quite see why you’d want to go to that extreme with this idea? It’s useful for some applications but even for a simple video game it’s likely not helpful.
I should’ve said that right away, really. That’s on me being online while tired. At that time I did not really think outside the box I was working in that day
It’s just a very common foot gun, especially in legacy code where it is not explicit in the design. Even when you have proper getters and setters, it’s way to easy for someone to overload the scope of some object, either intentionally or accidentally and modify it inappropriately.
I suppose immutability is a solution, I’m not sure if it’s a good idea to radically isolate everything though
it’s not radical, it’s just a guarantee that if you hold a reference to an object, it won’t change state under you. It’s a bit like every object has MVCC and copy-on-write semantics built in.
It’s easy enough to edit the object, producing a new copy, and then explicitly store it back where it goes or send it to whatever consumer needs it.
I get the idea, and how you keep it from copying a lot of data unnecessarily. A radical approach would be using immutable types exclusively
Oh, regarding copying data - immutable collections are based on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_data_structure - when a change is applied, you get back a reference to a new data structures where as many inner references as possible are shared with the old one. So, all the parts that didn’t change, are not copied.
For something like a Scala case class (similar to a record), o.copy(membername1 = newvalue) returns a new object, with a new membername1 reference, but all other member references are the same as the copied-from object. So it’s a shallow copy with minimal changes.
you might see how default immutability as a policy makes this more predictable and able to be reasoned about - any mutable object in an object graph that has a shared reference in a copy may surprise you by suddenly changing state.
Of course, that’s the situation everywhere, all the time, in default-mutable languages. How many people set a default value of a Python function argument to [] or {} and were baffled when things started breaking because the instance of the default value was mutated?
I guess, as a Scala enthusiast, it’s second nature to me - Scala incorporates immutable-by-default into its design so there are accommodations for it (.copy() methods on case classes, well-thought-out operators and methods on collections, “val” bindings, expression-oriented syntax).
It also lets you have normal OO classes and mutable vars anytime you want them, so you’re not stuck in a corner like you may sometimes be in Haskell if you don’t know the applicable FP pattern.
This helped me out quite a bit in a recent programming test for an employment screen – the challenge was to implement a time based key value store. One of the requirements that was revealed was that it needs to be able to back up and restore – this was as simple as storing the current root of the data in a list or map; it is effectively a snapshot.
Pure functional programming is often like this.
Or pragmatic functional programming, or rediscovered by “OO” programmers who realize they are messing up the Redux store bad.
It’s perfectly possible to work without mutability.
Is it desirable to be entirely without it? Probably not, but leaning immutable is definitely beneficial.
Code Ownership
Lol did someone try and make him maintain the shitty code he wrote
more likely a reference to someone being the 1 person you go to for a particular part of the codebase like they own it
Individual accountability
Team accountability is almost always better.
Group punishments so that the group will give sock soap to the individual. Best of both worlds
jeez dude you’re carrying a lot of baggage
Correct, but sock soap is the solution
This feels like a facetious post because what. There’s no way he’s serious
- ORM’s
- Place ALL of the business logic in stored procedures.
- Eliminate the backend.
- Make the front end connect directly to the database.
Profit- Introduce tons of bugs and terrible performance.
- Database is compromised within five minutes of going live.
I have for years been pumped to create a sql only side project or sql + frontend
Please don’t. I self-host actual budget, and they compile SQLite to WASM to use it in the FE. That just feels… wrong.
No, just write a repository to expose domain operations and implements them using SQL directly. Trying to fake OO object graphs against a RDBMS with a super-complex and leaky ORM is just painful.
Would you classify GORM that way?
Groovy’s ORM? I recall it being Hibernate under the hood and I had to fight with it to avoid common problems like hidden IO and N+1 query blowups (iterating over a set of results and then touching the wrong property means you are making another network call for each), learning its particular DSL for schema definition and associations, and not having a way to represent any but the simplest SQL constructs. The usual ORM stuff.
To the extent that you can write a syntax-checked SQL statement and it deserializes the results into some collection of row objects, it’s fine. But that’s not the “ORM” part.
GORM is Go ORM
I have not used that GORM, but ORMs have those problems generally.
I’m confused. Are you saying all of that is a consequence of not using ORMs? Because if so, that’s absolutely not true. ORMs truly are complete trash.
Sounds like you were hurt by an ORM.
One huge benefit of an ORM is that it does type checking. it makes sure your tables exist, relationships are valid, etc, and it makes easy things easy. If you add a column, it’ll make sure it gets populated, give you decent error messages, etc.
As long as you use a proper repository pattern setup and isolate DB interactions from the rest of the code, how you construct the queries is completely up to you. I try to use DTOs to communicate w/ the repo layer, so whether an ORM is used or direct SQL queries is largely an implementation detail.
https://github.com/launchbadge/sqlx
Not an ORM, but uses Rust’s compile time macros so you can write raw SQL and it will type check everything against either a real database connection or a JSON cache of the database’s schema.
Absolute best of both worlds.
That sounds really nice, I’ll have to check it out.
