Programming

27023 readers

223 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 3 years ago

MODERATORS

snowe@programming.dev

Ategon@programming.dev

UlrikHD@programming.dev

bugsmith@programming.dev

Spyro@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 6 months ago by iByteABit@programming.dev to c/programming@programming.dev

109 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 -1 points 6 months ago (19 children)

So we should not have #defines in the way, right?

Like INT32, instead of "int". I mean if you don't know the size you probably won't do network protocols or reading binary stuff anyways.

uint64_t is good IMO, a bit long (why the _t?) maybe, but it's not one of the atrocities I'm talking about where every project had its own defines.

[–] Feyd@programming.dev 4 points 6 months ago (15 children)

"int" can be different widths on different platforms. If all the compilers you must compile with have standard definitions for specific widths then great use em. That hasn't always been the case, in which case you must roll your own. I'm sure some projects did it where it was unneeded, but when you have to do it you have to do it

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago (14 children)

So show me two compatible systems where the int has different sizes.

This is folklore IMO, or incompatible anyways.

[–] Corbin@programming.dev 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

RPython, the toolchain which is used to build JIT compilers like PyPy, supports Windows and non-Windows interpretations of standard Python int. This leads to an entire module's worth of specialized arithmetic. In RPython, the usual approach to handling the size of ints is to immediately stop worrying about it and let the compiler tell you if you got it wrong; an int will have at least seven-ish bits but anything more is platform-specific. This is one of the few systems I've used where I have to cast from an int to an int because the compiler can't prove that the ints are the same size and might need a runtime cast, but it can't tell me whether it does need the runtime cast.

Of course, I don't expect you to accept this example, given what a whiner you've been down-thread, but at least you can't claim that nobody showed you anything.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Bravo, you found an example!

You're right, we should start using #define INT32 again...

load more comments (12 replies)

load more comments (15 replies)