Programming

23877 readers

284 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

snowe@programming.dev

Ategon@programming.dev

MaungaHikoi@lemmy.nz

UlrikHD@programming.dev

121

How much are SOLID principles in OOP programming (and JVM languages specifically) just a mindless following of a set of ideas that aren't always the best solution? (programming.dev)

submitted 1 month ago by iByteABit@programming.dev to c/programming@programming.dev

110 comments fedilink hide all child comments

As a Java engineer in the web development industry for several years now, having heard multiple times that X is good because of SOLID principles or Y is bad because it breaks SOLID principles, and having to memorize the "good" ways to do everything before an interview etc, I find it harder and harder to do when I really start to dive into the real reason I'm doing something in a particular way.

One example is creating an interface for every goddamn class I make because of "loose coupling" when in reality none of these classes are ever going to have an alternative implementation.

Also the more I get into languages like Rust, the more these doubts are increasing and leading me to believe that most of it is just dogma that has gone far beyond its initial motivations and goals and is now just a mindless OOP circlejerk.

There are definitely occasions when these principles do make sense, especially in an OOP environment, and they can also make some design patterns really satisfying and easy.

What are your opinions on this?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (32 children)

I remember the recommendation to use a typedef (or #define 😱) for integers, like INT32.

If you like recompile it on a weird CPU or something I guess. What a stupid idea. At least where I worked it was dumb, if someone knows any benefits I'd gladly hear it!

[–] SilverShark@programming.dev 9 points 1 month ago (10 children)

We had it because we needed to compile for Windows and Linux on both 32 and 64 bit processors. So we defined all our Int32, Int64, uint32, uint64 and so on. There were a bunch of these definitions within the core header file with #ifndef and such.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (9 children)

But you can use 64 bits int on a 32 bits linux, and vice versa. I never understood the benefits from tagging the stuff. You gotta go so far back in time where an int isn't compiled to a 32 bit signed int too. There were also already long long and size_t... why make new ones?

Readability maybe?

[–] SilverShark@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago

It was a while ago indeed, and readability does play a big role. Also, it becomes easier to just type it out. Of course auto complete helps, but it's just easier.

load more comments (8 replies)

load more comments (29 replies)