[LRUG] Dependency Injection and DHH

[Mike Kelly]

Nah, it seems like he believes his advice applies to everyone in
software engineering that's not doing
"very-very-computer-sciencey-things".

I can't help feeling the fad/crash diet analogy applies just as well -
if not better - to the "you don't need DI when you can just stub
methods on constants" school of thought.. i.e. it's a lazy way of
dealing with a difficult challenge that doesn't actually solve the
underlying problem.

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Guy Boertje <guyboertje at gmail.com> wrote:
> My take on the DHH keynote is that he is speaking up for the people who use
> Rails incidentally.  For example, the IT manager needing a web app, might
> have used PHP, now turns to Rails.  They would read some docs and get
> cracking; they may not be aware of git or github, TDD, SOLID or what a
> dependency is.  We, who use Rails, to build non-trivial apps, discuss these
> issues, make decisions, change our minds and act accordingly. I'm reminded
> of Dreyfus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_model_of_skill_acquisition.
>
> My 2p
> Guy
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Najaf Ali <ali at happybearsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> +1x10^gazillion, The next time the topic of TDD comes up, I'm just going
>> to copy-paste this email. It's all I have to say on the topic and I don't
>> disagree with a single word :)
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Gabe da Silveira <gabe at websaviour.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Chat mailing list
>>> Chat at lists.lrug.org
>>> http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chat mailing list
>> Chat at lists.lrug.org
>> http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chat mailing list
> Chat at lists.lrug.org
> http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org
>



-- 
Mike

http://twitter.com/mikekelly85
http://github.com/mikekelly
http://linkedin.com/in/mikekelly123