Re:Fear and Loathing in Programming La La Land (2012)
by coldtea on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:22PM
(#6049527)
Needlessly condescending and not so bright himself for it.
For example he didn't understand what the three categories of programmers were meant to be (tendencies between good programmers working at MS -- hence, even those deemed "opportunistic" are not some clueless idiots worthy for the Daily WTF).
Second, there are a few cases to be made for the second style (even over named parameters).
One is less clutter at the constructor level.
A second is easier reflection/dependency injection.
A third is it forces saner defaults.
Also, better readability for some (which is not all about cramming as many lines in the same editor screen).
It also makes parameters independent of ordering -- which in the compiler they are, but in a constructor they are not (except with named parameters, and even those have to come AFTER non named ones).
The only real downsides are: a) the possibility of using a half-baked object. But I don't see how that would be any different than omitting some of the named params. b) third parties mutating the objects. But then you have the same "issue" in most dynamic languages anyway.
(The off topic jab against "climate change" at the end was also pathetic -- apparently he's one of the climate change deniers, despite overwhelming acceptance of the notion from the scientific community, putting them on par with Creationists).
For example he didn't understand what the three categories of programmers were meant to be (tendencies between good programmers working at MS -- hence, even those deemed "opportunistic" are not some clueless idiots worthy for the Daily WTF).
Second, there are a few cases to be made for the second style (even over named parameters).
One is less clutter at the constructor level.
A second is easier reflection/dependency injection.
A third is it forces saner defaults.
Also, better readability for some (which is not all about cramming as many lines in the same editor screen).
It also makes parameters independent of ordering -- which in the compiler they are, but in a constructor they are not (except with named parameters, and even those have to come AFTER non named ones).
The only real downsides are: a) the possibility of using a half-baked object. But I don't see how that would be any different than omitting some of the named params. b) third parties mutating the objects. But then you have the same "issue" in most dynamic languages anyway.
(The off topic jab against "climate change" at the end was also pathetic -- apparently he's one of the climate change deniers, despite overwhelming acceptance of the notion from the scientific community, putting them on par with Creationists).