Programming

23348 readers

291 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

111

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 day ago by iByteABit@programming.dev to c/programming@programming.dev

90 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

[–] beejjorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm a firm believer in "Bruce Lee programming". Your approach needs to be flexible and adaptable. Sometimes SOLID is right, and sometimes it's not.

"Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own."

"Notice that the stiffest tree is most easily cracked, while the bamboo or willow survives by bending with the wind."

And some languages, like Rust, don't fully conform to a strict OO heritage like Java does.

"Be like water making its way through cracks. Do not be assertive, but adjust to the object, and you shall find a way around or through it. If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves.

"Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like water. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle and it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend."

[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It's been interesting to watch how the industry treats OOP over time. In the 90s, JavaScript was heavily criticized for not being "real" OOP. There were endless flamewars about it. If you didn't have the sorts of explicit support that C++ provided, like a class keyword, you weren't OOP, and that was bad.

Now we get languages like Rust, which seems completely uninterested in providing explicit OOP support at all. You can piece together support on your own if you want, and that's all anyone cares about.

JavaScript eventually did get its class keyword, but now we have much better reasons to bitch about the language.

[–] Brosplosion@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's funny cause in C++, inheritance is almost frowned upon now cause of the performance and complexity hits.

[–] wicked@programming.dev 3 points 12 hours ago

It's been frowned upon for decades.

That leads us to our second principle of object-oriented design: Favor object composition over class inheritance

Design Patterns - Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software (1994)

[–] beejjorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 day ago

The funny thing is I really liked the old JS prototypal inheritance. :)