Today, we have “jargonauts.” These are folks that key on certain terms and acronyms.
I remember, back in the 1990s, hearing everyone gushing about “AJAX,” and wondering what the big deal was (after being laughed at, for not knowing the term). No one would explain what it was.
I looked it up, and go “Oh, they mean HTTPRequestObject!”
Turned out, that I actually already knew a lot more about “AJAX,” than most of the folks gushing about it, and the reason no one would explain it, was that they didn’t actually understand it.
Lot of that, going around…
Except then it turns out what they mean isn't DI, but some other concept related to it and largely taken care of by their framework of choice.
Personally I find DI to make it harder to reason about in a sizeable portion of cases (20ish%) without actually providing a benefit.
So that makes me prefer going for rejection (Passing the result of the dependency instead of the dependency itself) or just keeping it there.
Altough, those approaches depend heavily on the rest of the codebase. (FP makes rejection relatively easy for example)
Without classes what would you be injecting? Other functions? That’s still something that happens all the time in FP.
That’s secretly the most powerful design strategy.
Altough, for usability it is IMO definitely the best.
Nowadays it's called a dict.
Not worth fighting over. Time is flying, and even the early 2000s was a couple of decades ago.
I'm pretty sure that HTTPRequest debuted in IE 5 or 6.
It's more akin to saying "We want to do this thing that's never been done on the web before, and no one ever thought to do. How do we assemble it out of this box of scraps that HTML and browsers currently give us?"
Consequently, there was probably proto-AJAX with ActiveX, the early js landscape, and iframes. But it would have certainly depended on where you worked.
Critically, internet connections were much slower (in latency and bandwidth), so partial page loads were more of an advantage.
I asked someone that was on that trip with me, and it was late 2007.
You know how it is, with us doddering old geezers; we forget stuff...
While I'd prefer to work, not needing the money implies the ability to avoid the interview process. It's a funny thing being in an industry where people retire not because they can't do the work at a professional level, but because getting a job is such a PITA.
I feel that this is a desired result. I am pretty convinced that folks like to have an "ideal culture" at their workplaces. I hear the term "cultural fit" so often, that I guess it means something that I'm missing.