[LRUG] Objects and on Hexagonal Rails

[Murray Steele]

On 24 July 2013 08:16, Mike Kelly <mikekelly321 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Chris Parsons <chris.p at rsons.org> wrote:
> > I actually don't think it's that hard to understand and read good OO
> > code, even for a less experienced coder. It's easier to understand
> > boilerplate rails code because we are used to seeing those abstractions
> > in other apps, but that's often because contort our domain to fit
> > inside the standard abstractions. Code that is set free from these
> > constraints can be surprisingly simple to follow.
>
> Exactly. Afaict, the challenge of getting up to speed on a codebase
> has little to do with being familiar with the idioms used, and more to
> do with whether the code itself is coherent and  intention revealing
> (both of which should be key metrics of "good" OO code).
>

Oh, yes.  I whole heartedly agree with this.  My concern is really around
the availability of prior-art that we can use to learn what the good
approaches are, what is idiomatic, &c.  I'd love it if Tom decided to go
ahead with an OO approach and blogged about it as he went.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org/attachments/20130724/573d2c5d/attachment.html>