• luciole (he/him)@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 hours ago

    So I was coming here with my pitchfork to blabber about how code is written for humans and that it’s important to be simple and clear and stuff… but then I realized this was a jab about that dumb book. Fuck that book.

  • bitcrafter@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 hours ago

    As someone who regularly has to deal with code that has been broken needlessly into smaller functions so that I have to constantly jump around to figure out what is going on, this really resonates with me.

    The latest case was someone who took something that really only needed to be a single function and instead turned it into a class with a dozen tiny methods.

  • Solumbran@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    9 hours ago

    “The cult of understandable things”

    Yeah ok bro, sure.

    Who doesn’t like a gigantic shitty code that “just works” after all?

  • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    9 hours ago

    I think this author has some points, but this is attacking the wrong thing.

    Clean code is not the source of the problems described. If you see similar code and try to extract a common abstraction without further consideration, congrats, you’re thinking like a junior developer, and that’s not Clean Code’s fault, to pull one example.

    • Feyd@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      The problem is that people recommend clean code to junior developers all the time. Clean Code is full of terrible advice and heuristics over critical thinking throughout, and is usually foisted on burgeoning juniors when they don’t know any better.

      In other words, you’re correct that adherents of clean code are thinking like junior developers, because that’s what clean code tells you to do.

      • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        That’s not my observation. I could flip it around and accuse the author of defending massive if/else chains because my experience is that anything that needs more than a handful of lines of code is either a complex mapper or a nightmare of failed Boolean algebra.

        That doesn’t mean the bad code I’ve seen is OP’s fault. It means there’s a lot of shit programmers and adopting a particular style doesn’t fix it.

        • Feyd@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Then you’re just wrong. Clean Code directly tells you to make the mistakes the author of the article points out. The absurdity of the examples in the book should be evident enough.

  • resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 hours ago

    You see two functions that look similar. Clean Code sirens start blaring in your head. You extract a common abstraction. You add parameters to handle the slight differences. Then more parameters. Then a config object. Then a strategy pattern because you’re a Real Engineer™.

    I’ve watched dozens of hours of Uncle Bob videos (not by choice) and this isn’t what he advocates. At all.

    This author has no clue what they’re talking about.

  • SamuraiBeandog@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    This is an article by a person who doesn’t understand SOLID principles, talking about programmers who don’t understand SOLID principles.