On Sunday, 6 March 2016 at 20:33:39 UTC, sigod wrote:
Interesting talk. Especially given that my D code tends to be
structured very similarly to what Will suggests.
It's pretty good.
I'm reminded of my short time working in a tech company where we
did Java programming. There were multiple things that annoyed me.
First was EVERYTHING was an object. That didn't make sense for
logically passing just data as a block together, say 3D points as
x,y,z, where you'd end up making a final class holding nothing
but those three types, and no functions just so you could sort of
emulate a struct.
Another annoyance was the main function which had to break the
OO requirements by making a class with a static main you could
then call. It never quite felt like it fit.
They also pushed making all members publicly accessible via
getters and setters. So you'd have a lot of code like this:
Class X {
private:
int a;
public:
int getA(){return a;}
void setA(int A){a=A;}
}
Finally, the last large annoyance was working on Web
Programming. We'd end up doing a combination of either ASP or
JSP. It was modeled in 4 layers (UI, Logic, Business, Database)
where often in the UI layer you'd immediately drop 2-3 levels and
talk directly to the Database.
Didn't help how they wanted every call to get data from the
database, and a simple calendar/timesheet application did like 50
calls per page to the database making it take FOREVER, i think 30
seconds? We knew if it was that slow for 1 person, having the
entire company using it with 600 employees it would totally suck.
