What the elephant happened to OO design?
-
charlieg wrote:
control c / control v must be banned
Couldn't agree more. I once worked with a guy who copy/pasted everything and had no idea what it actually was he did. He used
someCollection.Where(x => x.MeetsCriteria());every day for over a year. Then I noticed he usedbool any = c.Where(...).Count() > 0;I told him to usesomeCollection.Any(...)instead because it's a lot cheaper and more readable. However, he did not understand the types of the input parameters toAny(Expression> predicate)or the even simplerAny(Func predicate). Spoiler:WhereandAnyhave the exact same input parameter. He literally told me "I know I type 'Where' and then some letter, whatever that is, and then '=>' and then I can magically use properties on the objects of a collection. I didn't know it was the same for Any, I never knew the parameter type." :omg: :wtf: :~ X| Since then I've told that guy NEVER to copy/paste again, it's a right that needs to be deserved and he clearly didn't deserve it X| Of course he kept on copy/pasting because that was all he could... A useful code monkey, he had his place, but he needed a lot of guidance.Best, Sander Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
Expression is confusing when you just start with it. That part I understand. I used it for the first time and I was absolutely confused. I had to really force myself out of desire of reverting back to very familiar reflection classes and methods. Once I got it, it ended up writing an entire generic, erm, framework(?) to add search functionality in MVC application through one line of code and a JSON file. This source code confused the folks who had to consume it in their applications. However, using Where and not knowing Any is clear indication of ripping off code from the interwebs with no desire of at least understanding what it is.
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[^]
-
I know the 4 pillars of OOD - but my love is for abstraction and encapsulation. Polymorphism is useful, but I've found it confuses many developers. Inheritance results in hemorrhoids and other digestive issues, so unless I have a very, very generic object, I tend to avoid it. That said, it baffles me to the point of wanting to cut myself why encapsulation is ignored. I'm living in a static global world where we hack away every day... I have a file that contains data. Why would you not write a class to handle it? Every damn tool we have is a C++ compiler. :doh: I'm thinking that to advance software development to the next level, control c / control v must be banned.
Charlie Gilley <italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape... "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783 “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
charlieg wrote:
I'm living in a static global world
My World is pretty dynamic.
charlieg wrote:
control c / control v must be banned
No! I don't want to type that same basic template for model classes again and again. This and other goodies are there in my repository of common things I need in almost every project I work on. And I will copy and paste them. Wow, I am gansta!
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[^]
-
I know the 4 pillars of OOD - but my love is for abstraction and encapsulation. Polymorphism is useful, but I've found it confuses many developers. Inheritance results in hemorrhoids and other digestive issues, so unless I have a very, very generic object, I tend to avoid it. That said, it baffles me to the point of wanting to cut myself why encapsulation is ignored. I'm living in a static global world where we hack away every day... I have a file that contains data. Why would you not write a class to handle it? Every damn tool we have is a C++ compiler. :doh: I'm thinking that to advance software development to the next level, control c / control v must be banned.
Charlie Gilley <italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape... "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783 “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
-
charlieg wrote:
control c / control v must be banned
Couldn't agree more. I once worked with a guy who copy/pasted everything and had no idea what it actually was he did. He used
someCollection.Where(x => x.MeetsCriteria());every day for over a year. Then I noticed he usedbool any = c.Where(...).Count() > 0;I told him to usesomeCollection.Any(...)instead because it's a lot cheaper and more readable. However, he did not understand the types of the input parameters toAny(Expression> predicate)or the even simplerAny(Func predicate). Spoiler:WhereandAnyhave the exact same input parameter. He literally told me "I know I type 'Where' and then some letter, whatever that is, and then '=>' and then I can magically use properties on the objects of a collection. I didn't know it was the same for Any, I never knew the parameter type." :omg: :wtf: :~ X| Since then I've told that guy NEVER to copy/paste again, it's a right that needs to be deserved and he clearly didn't deserve it X| Of course he kept on copy/pasting because that was all he could... A useful code monkey, he had his place, but he needed a lot of guidance.Best, Sander Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
I need to watch out for these in my teams code. Can you suggest a C# book that focus on LINQ performance? I have to learn them first!
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy Falcon.
-
Expression is confusing when you just start with it. That part I understand. I used it for the first time and I was absolutely confused. I had to really force myself out of desire of reverting back to very familiar reflection classes and methods. Once I got it, it ended up writing an entire generic, erm, framework(?) to add search functionality in MVC application through one line of code and a JSON file. This source code confused the folks who had to consume it in their applications. However, using Where and not knowing Any is clear indication of ripping off code from the interwebs with no desire of at least understanding what it is.
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[^]
lw@zi wrote:
ripping off code from the interwebs
At least he ripped it off from me, so it wasn't THAT bad! :laugh: Although this guy though I had written generics :laugh: And yeah, Expressions are confusing. It's confusing over and over again. Luckily, it's not very common to build your own Expressions manually :)
Best, Sander Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
-
I need to watch out for these in my teams code. Can you suggest a C# book that focus on LINQ performance? I have to learn them first!
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy Falcon.
Not a recent book. There's Pro LINQ by Apress, but that's from 2010 already :wtf: However, you don't really need a book. If you're working with LINQ-to-Entities I'd use a profiler and check out every SQL query that gets send to the database (I think they're printed in the output window as well, but that's a bit of a search). For LINQ-to-Objects I wouldn't worry about performance too much, just make sure you keep the non-deferred LINQ operators for last :) Tools like Visual Studio and Resharper can also give you tips, like revert
coll.Where(...).First();tocoll.First(...);Best, Sander Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
-
I know the 4 pillars of OOD - but my love is for abstraction and encapsulation. Polymorphism is useful, but I've found it confuses many developers. Inheritance results in hemorrhoids and other digestive issues, so unless I have a very, very generic object, I tend to avoid it. That said, it baffles me to the point of wanting to cut myself why encapsulation is ignored. I'm living in a static global world where we hack away every day... I have a file that contains data. Why would you not write a class to handle it? Every damn tool we have is a C++ compiler. :doh: I'm thinking that to advance software development to the next level, control c / control v must be banned.
Charlie Gilley <italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape... "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783 “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
charlieg wrote:
Inheritance results in hemorrhoids and other digestive issues
Only if applied cluelessly (which I have done in several occasions and hopefully I learned from them though I wouldn't bet on it).
charlieg wrote:
I have a file that contains data.
I have several of them.
charlieg wrote:
I'm thinking that to advance software development to the next level, control c / control v must be banned.
You'd have fixed 90% of the bugs in our codebase and driven to the mental hospital one of my less favourite coworkers. Motion approved! When I begin a new project I encapsulate everything, and I do the same when I'm tasked to modify something that exists. The only problem in my environment is that we don't have a single product but about five hundreds of them and growing, all with more or less the same code at different points in time over 20 years but no shared file. Each version has its own copy and the source control is a plain .zip file. This means that I may have to fix the same thing over a dozen of times before it becomes the new baseline for the future - the existing products are still to be maintained with the old code and architecture.
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
-
I know the 4 pillars of OOD - but my love is for abstraction and encapsulation. Polymorphism is useful, but I've found it confuses many developers. Inheritance results in hemorrhoids and other digestive issues, so unless I have a very, very generic object, I tend to avoid it. That said, it baffles me to the point of wanting to cut myself why encapsulation is ignored. I'm living in a static global world where we hack away every day... I have a file that contains data. Why would you not write a class to handle it? Every damn tool we have is a C++ compiler. :doh: I'm thinking that to advance software development to the next level, control c / control v must be banned.
Charlie Gilley <italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape... "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783 “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
I would have agreed with you even still 2 years ago. Now I am really facing the market reality, and I am less evangelistic about holy code. Actually, getting things done faster and cheaper has superseded the need of quality - alas - and people do not care about quality anymore. Security issues in Facebook due to poor coding ? After a bit of show from Zuckerberg, everybody has already forgotten. Thousands and thousands of bugs in Microsoft products ? People earn money by blogging and youtubing about workarounds. So if the demand is "please get me this done for yesterday and for no money", then copy & paste code is plain OK. In my current position, which gets a bit above the boundaries of SW development, management made the choice to get products done and tested in low-cost locations, with a ratio of 3 people designing for 2 people fixing the design mistakes as they pop up in series production. Altogether, these 5 people are still 1/3 the cost of one solid and experienced engineer here and they are processing about 2 to 3 times as much projects, so ... The trend in the industry is to get low-cost locations do rapid-prototyping as product design and rapid-fixing on a case to case demand, since - unless very bis issues - nobody cares about quality. The experience of the designers in low -cost locations grow faster than their cost, so in about 2 to 3 years, we can expect an equivalent design skill as in high-cost locations, but for still half of the price, and the 2 fixing guys can probably be reduced to 1. The only sacrificed element in all this is a bit of quality, but foremost innovation - future will tell if the business model can survive.
-
I know the 4 pillars of OOD - but my love is for abstraction and encapsulation. Polymorphism is useful, but I've found it confuses many developers. Inheritance results in hemorrhoids and other digestive issues, so unless I have a very, very generic object, I tend to avoid it. That said, it baffles me to the point of wanting to cut myself why encapsulation is ignored. I'm living in a static global world where we hack away every day... I have a file that contains data. Why would you not write a class to handle it? Every damn tool we have is a C++ compiler. :doh: I'm thinking that to advance software development to the next level, control c / control v must be banned.
Charlie Gilley <italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape... "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783 “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
charlieg wrote:
control c / control v
Hey, isnt cloning mans answer to evolution? :)
-
charlieg wrote:
I'm living in a static global world
My World is pretty dynamic.
charlieg wrote:
control c / control v must be banned
No! I don't want to type that same basic template for model classes again and again. This and other goodies are there in my repository of common things I need in almost every project I work on. And I will copy and paste them. Wow, I am gansta!
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[^]
the control c / control v comment was mostly in jest... mostly. ;)
Charlie Gilley <italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape... "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783 “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
-
I know the 4 pillars of OOD - but my love is for abstraction and encapsulation. Polymorphism is useful, but I've found it confuses many developers. Inheritance results in hemorrhoids and other digestive issues, so unless I have a very, very generic object, I tend to avoid it. That said, it baffles me to the point of wanting to cut myself why encapsulation is ignored. I'm living in a static global world where we hack away every day... I have a file that contains data. Why would you not write a class to handle it? Every damn tool we have is a C++ compiler. :doh: I'm thinking that to advance software development to the next level, control c / control v must be banned.
Charlie Gilley <italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape... "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783 “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
-
I would have agreed with you even still 2 years ago. Now I am really facing the market reality, and I am less evangelistic about holy code. Actually, getting things done faster and cheaper has superseded the need of quality - alas - and people do not care about quality anymore. Security issues in Facebook due to poor coding ? After a bit of show from Zuckerberg, everybody has already forgotten. Thousands and thousands of bugs in Microsoft products ? People earn money by blogging and youtubing about workarounds. So if the demand is "please get me this done for yesterday and for no money", then copy & paste code is plain OK. In my current position, which gets a bit above the boundaries of SW development, management made the choice to get products done and tested in low-cost locations, with a ratio of 3 people designing for 2 people fixing the design mistakes as they pop up in series production. Altogether, these 5 people are still 1/3 the cost of one solid and experienced engineer here and they are processing about 2 to 3 times as much projects, so ... The trend in the industry is to get low-cost locations do rapid-prototyping as product design and rapid-fixing on a case to case demand, since - unless very bis issues - nobody cares about quality. The experience of the designers in low -cost locations grow faster than their cost, so in about 2 to 3 years, we can expect an equivalent design skill as in high-cost locations, but for still half of the price, and the 2 fixing guys can probably be reduced to 1. The only sacrificed element in all this is a bit of quality, but foremost innovation - future will tell if the business model can survive.
As a guy that wears a cybersecurity hat, I thank you for ensuring my future employment ;P
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
-
I know the 4 pillars of OOD - but my love is for abstraction and encapsulation. Polymorphism is useful, but I've found it confuses many developers. Inheritance results in hemorrhoids and other digestive issues, so unless I have a very, very generic object, I tend to avoid it. That said, it baffles me to the point of wanting to cut myself why encapsulation is ignored. I'm living in a static global world where we hack away every day... I have a file that contains data. Why would you not write a class to handle it? Every damn tool we have is a C++ compiler. :doh: I'm thinking that to advance software development to the next level, control c / control v must be banned.
Charlie Gilley <italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape... "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783 “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Polymorphism is DAMN useful. MS broke inheritance in .net when they coded themselves into a corner resulting in the seemingly arbitrary restriction that a programmer could only inherit from a single class, but multiple interfaces. What a crock. None of these OOP constructs would be confusing if instructors actually knew how to, oh, I don't know - INSTRUCT.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
Polymorphism is DAMN useful. MS broke inheritance in .net when they coded themselves into a corner resulting in the seemingly arbitrary restriction that a programmer could only inherit from a single class, but multiple interfaces. What a crock. None of these OOP constructs would be confusing if instructors actually knew how to, oh, I don't know - INSTRUCT.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013Well, it as not something Microsoft came up with. Languages like Java had that way before C# did. People moving from C++ usually find it an annoying restriction but after a few years of coding in C# or Java, most people usually find it to not be much of a limiting factor at all. And compiler authors don't have to deal with the diamond problem and all the complexities it adds to the compiler definitions.
Nish Nishant Consultant Software Architect Ganymede Software Solutions LLC www.ganymedesoftwaresolutions.com
-
Nothing has happened to OOD; it is still a very powerful design tool. The problem is the severe shortage (and consequent high salaries) of good software engineers. In lieu of decent software engineers, companies hire programmers who are a lot cheaper, are much easier to find, but could not use proper design to save their lives. Make no mistake; within their limitations, some of them are very good coders. If they were to be exposed to proper design principles (and some decent mentoring), some of them could become decent software engineers. The problem with the more capable ones is that they have no idea that OOD and other design tools even exist!
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
The problem is the severe shortage (and consequent high salaries) of good software engineers. In lieu of decent software engineers, companies hire programmers who are a lot cheaper, are much easier to find, but could not use proper design to save their lives.
And then said companies tell the remaining few senior devs to dumb down their code so the juniors can understand it, because the code reflects a well thought out design that befuddles those that don't have good design skills! :laugh:
Latest Article - Building a Prototype Web-Based Diagramming Tool with SVG and Javascript Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
-
I know the 4 pillars of OOD - but my love is for abstraction and encapsulation. Polymorphism is useful, but I've found it confuses many developers. Inheritance results in hemorrhoids and other digestive issues, so unless I have a very, very generic object, I tend to avoid it. That said, it baffles me to the point of wanting to cut myself why encapsulation is ignored. I'm living in a static global world where we hack away every day... I have a file that contains data. Why would you not write a class to handle it? Every damn tool we have is a C++ compiler. :doh: I'm thinking that to advance software development to the next level, control c / control v must be banned.
Charlie Gilley <italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape... "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783 “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
charlieg wrote:
Why would you not write a class to handle it?
It's called "dumbing down." ;P
Latest Article - Building a Prototype Web-Based Diagramming Tool with SVG and Javascript Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
-
Well, it as not something Microsoft came up with. Languages like Java had that way before C# did. People moving from C++ usually find it an annoying restriction but after a few years of coding in C# or Java, most people usually find it to not be much of a limiting factor at all. And compiler authors don't have to deal with the diamond problem and all the complexities it adds to the compiler definitions.
Nish Nishant Consultant Software Architect Ganymede Software Solutions LLC www.ganymedesoftwaresolutions.com
Nish Nishant wrote:
People moving from C++ usually find it an annoying restriction
That's me - in spades...
Nish Nishant wrote:
but after a few years of coding in C# or Java, most people usually find it to not be much of a limiting factor at all
Nope. Still annoying, even after 11 years of coding in C#. I'm honestly not interested or concerned with the burdens experienced by compiler authors. The only reason C# even exists is because Microslop was bitch-slapped for trying to take over the java domain. It's okay, though. I'm old, and soon I'll be dead, allowing Microsoft to continue on unmolested, because soy-boys willingly accept their assault on programming languages, and all the real programmers that raged against their absurdities will have passed away. Eventually, you'll be able to write complete programs with a series of words like "flopgloop" and "pardultary". No matter what order you place them in, the app will still compile, but the functionality will change. EDIT ============== Microslop has proven once again they don't have any original thoughts left, by purchasing GitHub.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
I know the 4 pillars of OOD - but my love is for abstraction and encapsulation. Polymorphism is useful, but I've found it confuses many developers. Inheritance results in hemorrhoids and other digestive issues, so unless I have a very, very generic object, I tend to avoid it. That said, it baffles me to the point of wanting to cut myself why encapsulation is ignored. I'm living in a static global world where we hack away every day... I have a file that contains data. Why would you not write a class to handle it? Every damn tool we have is a C++ compiler. :doh: I'm thinking that to advance software development to the next level, control c / control v must be banned.
Charlie Gilley <italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape... "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783 “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Some people think that they are programming, simply by blindly copying/pasting working blocks of code and "search" the internet for other snippets to copy. Ask for a minor change, and they'll replace the entire block by another that has been "found".
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
I know the 4 pillars of OOD - but my love is for abstraction and encapsulation. Polymorphism is useful, but I've found it confuses many developers. Inheritance results in hemorrhoids and other digestive issues, so unless I have a very, very generic object, I tend to avoid it. That said, it baffles me to the point of wanting to cut myself why encapsulation is ignored. I'm living in a static global world where we hack away every day... I have a file that contains data. Why would you not write a class to handle it? Every damn tool we have is a C++ compiler. :doh: I'm thinking that to advance software development to the next level, control c / control v must be banned.
Charlie Gilley <italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape... "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783 “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
charlieg wrote:
why encapsulation is ignored
Because history repeats.
I live in Oregon, and I'm an engineer.
-
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
The problem is the severe shortage (and consequent high salaries) of good software engineers. In lieu of decent software engineers, companies hire programmers who are a lot cheaper, are much easier to find, but could not use proper design to save their lives.
And then said companies tell the remaining few senior devs to dumb down their code so the juniors can understand it, because the code reflects a well thought out design that befuddles those that don't have good design skills! :laugh:
Latest Article - Building a Prototype Web-Based Diagramming Tool with SVG and Javascript Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
:sigh:
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
