|
yeah complaining about descriptive classnames in java is a sign of a bad programmer.
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 01:08 |
|
|
I'm fine with descriptive class names. TransactionAwarePersistenceManagerFactoryProxy is not a descriptive class name.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
It is though? It tells you exactly what it is. What alternate name would suggest that describes what the class is?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
DumbPieceOfCodeThatsProbablyBuggyAnyway except all classes would have that name in all projects
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:I'm fine with descriptive class names. TransactionAwarePersistenceManagerFactoryProxy is not a descriptive class name. it is a proxy for the default JEE persistencemanagerfactory that is spring transaction aware. This allows you to inject it inplace of a standard PersistanceManagerFactory in order to gain the transaction capabilities of spring w/out adding compile-time spring dependencies if you need it then it makes immediate sense. if you don't then it doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
singling out framework class names without context is funny but a little unfair
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
right. 99% of people using that class will be people working inside spring itself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
the names is the wrong thing to go after in this case either way, but then the design philosophy debate would get spergy and dull (a first for the thread in that case) plus transactional behavior is easily the best use case of injection bullshit (and really the secret super feature of a lot of the otherwise dubious framework wankery in Java)
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Cybernetic Vermin posted:injection bullshit lol. p-langer spotted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
i think you have that backwards, as dependency injection bullshit is pretty clearly a reaction to dynamic languages, and is overused terribly in bad situations the other aspect is of course people who feel that singletons are ever so wrong, but want to use them so badly, and feel that jesus will forgive them as long as they do singletons declaratively, which is of no semantic difference whatsoever
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:I'm fine with descriptive class names. TransactionAwarePersistenceManagerFactoryProxy is not a descriptive class name. it's a frightening name, but these are probably concepts and techniques that can't be explained with a couple of simple words 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Cybernetic Vermin posted:i think you have that backwards, as dependency injection bullshit is pretty clearly a reaction to dynamic languages, and is overused terribly in bad situations A 'singleton' bean in Spring is actually really different from a GOF singleton though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
yeah good luck trying to do meaningful transactions with mongo or redis w/ ruby or javascript or whatever loving baby language you're using i sure wouldn't want to be you when this undulating fuckpile spectacularly shits the bed in production spring owns 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
redis has atomic ops iirc? how to make a fast nosql in 3 steps 1. keep everything in memory. fsync occasionally, maybe 2. provide atomic CAS and inc/dec 3. write a blog about how transaction are dumb and you don't need them. heres how you implement a queue using atomic primitives
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
Kevin Mitnick P.E. posted:redis has atomic ops iirc? both mongo and redis have them
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
heh, atomicitiy is a feature, not a reasonable expectation
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
tef posted:heh, atomicitiy is a feature, not a reasonable expectation which kind of atomic
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
holy poo poo how do people use dynamically typed languages for anything spanning more than one source file
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
Sweeper posted:which kind of atomic i mean my new bitcoin exchange is gonna be based on mongodb and node.js. i mean who wants transactions or even guaranteed writes/exception handling when there's money and antagonistic users involved?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
JewKiller 3000 posted:holy poo poo how do people use dynamically typed languages for anything spanning more than one source file great unit tests  like those things even go together
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
ultramiraculous posted:great unit tests
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
ultramiraculous posted:i mean my new bitcoin exchange is gonna be based on mongodb and node.js. i mean who wants transactions or even guaranteed writes/exception handling when there's money and antagonistic users involved? [–]hahahabar 1 point 17 days ago > Deploy time costs developer time. Oh, yeah, that additional second at the end of the day will really make a difference! permalinkparent
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
sulk what do you know about deployment time or developer time
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
JewKiller 3000 posted:sulk what do you know about deployment time or developer time hey now he writes scala at his job. he's a big boy
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 08:58
|
|
|
JewKiller 3000 posted:holy poo poo how do people use dynamically typed languages for anything spanning more than one source file it's almost like the quality of the language isn't really that important in the end
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 09:10
|
|
|
JewKiller 3000 posted:holy poo poo how do people use dynamically typed languages for anything spanning more than one source file The same way they use statically typed languages: terribly
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 09:43
|
|
|
JewKiller 3000 posted:holy poo poo how do people use dynamically typed languages for anything spanning more than one source file idk how's this a problem with dynamic typing I mean my only point of reference for static here is f90's module system and it kind of sucks compared to python's namespaces
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 09:45
|
|
|
Symbolic Butt posted:idk how's this a problem with dynamic typing pictured: a proponent of dynamic typing
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 13:02
|
|
|
if you were talking about javascript I would totally get it, modules in javascript is a huge hack. but dynamic typing in general ehhh explain it to me how can it be so bad, I'm a baby
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 13:12
|
|
|
dynamic typing has its uses and i'm definitely not saying "hurr durr it's bad mmkey" however static typing (by which I mean modern static typing) is essentially a set of safety rails for you the programmer. often you will want to go outside of those rails in which case great use your language's dynamic or casting or whatever most of the time though, i find it way better to have those rails there by default rather than trusting the programmer to remember where they are. would you rather find your mistakes at compile time or through extensive unit testing? (this is a trick question) there's a reason that all dynamic languages have extensive static analysis toolkits
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 13:16
|
|
|
if you are a perfect programmer than you don't need a type system. you also don't need any modern bullshit and programming in c or asm would lead to much faster programs. you are not a perfect programmer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 13:19
|
|
|
AlsoD posted:dynamic typing has its uses and i'm definitely not saying "hurr durr it's bad mmkey" i'm not sure i'd call a kludged-together third-party type inferrer a static analysis toolkit. LLVM might qualify, along with Roslyn. eclipse might have something usable for java, or it might be specialized to eclipse
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 13:45
|
|
|
JewKiller 3000 posted:holy poo poo how do people use dynamically typed languages for anything spanning more than one source file by not being colossal retards i guess
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 13:51
|
|
|
idk what kind of mistakes some of you are constantly making that have you stockholm-syndromed into thinking that static typing is somehow beneficial but it must be a real shitshow at your job. i imagine you are constantly saying things like "oops i accidentally added the customer's age and name together. good thing java was there to be my safety net."
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 14:06
|
|
|
AlsoD posted:however static typing (by which I mean modern static typing) is essentially a set of safety rails for you the programmer. ok I think I get this but I don't understand how this is related to coding projects with multiple files. this seems to be an issue with how the programming language deals with modularity, not with the type system unless you're just talking about "how do I deal with dynamic typing in huge projects"
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
Symbolic Butt posted:if you were talking about javascript I would totally get it, modules in javascript is a huge hack. but dynamic typing in general ehhh my own babby opinion is that the program is going to test whether the types match up at some point, and there's going to be hell to pay if they don't. so if it's gonna happen either way, it may as well happen at compile time. the usual complaint about static typing is the "boilerplate" it entails, and while i might have agreed with that ten years ago modern autocomplete n refactoring tools have p. much eliminated the overhead
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:you mean like this? yase, something like that. this has the "feature" that it's limited to one exception hierarchy only, so practically it can operate on a single module only. you could write some Java code:and then there's other things like perhaps you don't always know if you should use 1 or 2 exception hierarchies, or maybe the 2 hierarchies end up being the same one and it just gets silly and I haven't even bothered working out if any of this would work cos it's all so stupid exceptions should be passed through as sets rather than individually
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Symbolic Butt posted:ok I think I get this with regards to JewKiller 3000's specific complaint: one area where static types directly make programming easier is w.r.t auto-completion. Since it's known at compile time if a certain object implements Runnable or Collection or whatever then there's only so many methods you can call from that object and so the IDE can give them in a list. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that can be done from python for example. Sure you can autocomplete names from the list of identifiers in the project + standard library or whatever but it's not the same. funnily enough this works great for J-langs, Agda and Idris but not Haskell itself 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
i bought that C++ book you were recommending, for a "primer" it's a loving tome jesus christ. not sure I'm ever going to have time to go through it
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 01:08 |
|
|
AlsoD posted:one area where static types directly make programming easier is w.r.t auto-completion. Since it's known at compile time if a certain object implements Runnable or Collection or whatever then there's only so many methods you can call from that object and so the IDE can give them in a list. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that can be done from python for example. Sure you can autocomplete names from the list of identifiers in the project + standard library or whatever but it's not the same. whoa this is literally the first valid argument in favor of static typing i've ever seen. that said i guess it's up to you but i personally don't think improved autocompletion is worth the programming equivalent of having someone follow you around all day and yell at you whenever you end a sentence with a preposition
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 17:04
|
|