Programming

23394 readers

213 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

123

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 4 days ago by iByteABit@programming.dev to c/programming@programming.dev

115 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

[–] Guttural@jlai.lu 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Emulation code where you expect unsigned integers to wrap around instead of being UB is a good example, because it was guaranteed for programmers working on the emulated systems.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

That's just how it works and have always worked. You can use an unsigned char on a 64 bit system and it'll behave like on the Commodore 64. I don't understand what you are trying to show.

[–] Guttural@jlai.lu 0 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

When a system uses words of a specific size, you need to use the same size for wraparound behaviour to work as expected. Incrementing 0xffff by one needs to return 0. It's easy if you use a uint16_t. Not so much if you use an unsigned of unspecified length.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago

We are in a total agreement here.