[LRUG] Dependency Injection and DHH

[Gabe da Silveira]

On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Anthony Green <
anthony.charles.green at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> These kind of missives have a tendency to devolve to flame bait. TDD goes
> through the same cyclical exchanges.
> And this continues despite the 'TDD - Thats not what we meant'
>  interventions.
> As I get older I have an increasing desire to move on and focus on
> exchanges that help me improve on the disciplines I've chosen to believe
> will help me produce better software.
>

To be fair, flame bait is one of DHH's prime MOs. His goal isn't nuanced
discourse, as evidenced by his conflation of computer science with serious
software engineering in the keynote.  That said, I appreciate his challenge
of TDD and architecture astronautism simply as a counterpoint to prevailing
ideologies which, in the absence of push back, have a tendency to be cargo
culted mercilessly.

On the one hand, I think DHH's critiques of techniques for separating
persistence and business model concerns are pretty weak since his entire
career is based on controlling his own domain and keeping it dead simple.
 It's easy for him to shoot down the need for any more complex architecture
because any small example for the sake of discussion is necessarily reduced
below the scope where such structure is necessary.  But on the other hand,
I couldn't agree more that TDD/BDD do not lead to better designs—they lead
to better tests, and good tests are just one metric of a good codebase.
 Ruby, of course, requires good tests to have any reliability over time
whatsoever, but we shouldn't forget that tests are still ancillary.  Being
testable is only a small fraction of what makes a given architecture good.

-gabe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org/attachments/20140428/e7cb23c0/attachment-0003.html>