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

[–] JakenVeina@midwest.social 23 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

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.

That one is indeed objective horse shit. If your interface has only one implementation, it should not be an interface. That being said, a second implementation made for testing COUNTS as a second implementation, so context matters.

In general, I feel like OOP principals like are indeed used as dogma more often than not, in Java-land and .NET-land. There's a lot of legacy applications out there run by folks who've either forgotten how to apply these principles soundly, or were never taught to in the first place. But I think it's more of a general programming trend, than any problem with OOP or its ecosystems in particular. Betcha we see similar things with Rust, when it reaches the same age.

[–] egerlach@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago

SOLID often comes up against YAGNI (you ain't gonna need it).

What makes software so great to develop (as opposed to hardware) is that you can (on the small scale) do design after implementation (i.e. refactoring). That lets you decide after seeing how your new bit fits in whether you need an abstraction or not.

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yeah... Interfaces are great, but not everything needs an interface.

I ask myself: How likely is this going to have an alternative implementation in the future?

If the answer is "kinda likely", it gets an interface. If the answer is "idk, probably not? Why would it?" then it does not get an interface.

Of course these days it's more likely to be an unnecessary trait than an unnecessary interface. For me, I mean.