Learn something new every day.
- I am a senior software engineer working in industry, teaching and writing on software design, SOLID principles, DDD and TDD.
Location
Buenos Aires
Education
Computer Science Degree at Universidad de Buenos Aires
Code must allways be in classes. We are doing POO here . So if the responsability is not in a class, who must carry it on?
I love structured paradigm. There you can put utility functions in a coupled library of uncohesive crap. But this is not true for real OOP.
Regarding waste of resources. I am not a premature optimizer. Unless we are doing mission critical code, I will always favor readability over performance.
I don't see why state is evil.
I think we are programming under different paradigms, and I am perfectly fine with it.
To me it is still a code smell.
Why does the code need to be in a class? Who said so? There are languages with no classes, and they are perfectly fine. You are into DDD, you should have taken it into consideration.
I will always favor readability over performance.
If you say that new Qwe().rty() is more readable than querty() you have weird understanding of readability :-)
To me it is still a code smell.
Ok. To YOU. You are not spreading generalized common knowledge, but YOUR opinion. That's fine.
Learn something new every day.
- I am a senior software engineer working in industry, teaching and writing on software design, SOLID principles, DDD and TDD.
Location
Buenos Aires
Education
Computer Science Degree at Universidad de Buenos Aires
INMH, Typescript linter is wrong.
Code must allways be in classes. We are doing POO here . So if the responsability is not in a class, who must carry it on?
I love structured paradigm. There you can put utility functions in a coupled library of uncohesive crap. But this is not true for real OOP.
Regarding waste of resources. I am not a premature optimizer. Unless we are doing mission critical code, I will always favor readability over performance.
I don't see why state is evil.
I think we are programming under different paradigms, and I am perfectly fine with it.
To me it is still a code smell.
Why does the code need to be in a class? Who said so? There are languages with no classes, and they are perfectly fine. You are into DDD, you should have taken it into consideration.
If you say that
new Qwe().rty()is more readable thanquerty()you have weird understanding of readability :-)Ok. To YOU. You are not spreading generalized common knowledge, but YOUR opinion. That's fine.
I am fine with prototype based languages.
neither Qwe().rty(), nor querty() are readable to me.
I am spreading my opinions :)
We agree to disagree