|
He didn't really have a concise or proper conclusion, I agree.
My take away was to keep your solutions simple (maintainable) and one key way to doing that is by implementing less abstraction, starting with this Repository Elephant-sh*t. 
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, and I agree with that, but it shouldn't take an hour and a half to say that.
Emilio Largo wrote: this Repository Elephant-sh*t.
And now I have to laugh at these "Hortonworks" ads I see on the CP home page.  Are they purveyers of that shtuff?
|
|
|
|
|
I lost interest after watching for a while. He sounds like a pretentious twat, but that's probably my just bias against long-winded people (and I feel pissed off in general today. Don't mind me...)
I bet he could have made his point in 15 minutes, but that would probably make him unconvincing in the eyes of PHB-type individuals. KISS could also mean Keep It Short & Sweet, you know.
|
|
|
|
|
Agree! People are dumb and try to hide low qualification behind pattern names. Real programmers invent pattern from the head! And not only pattern, but ANY algorithm! Patterns exist just for IT monkeys.
|
|
|
|
|
And how many of these "real programmers" do you propose to employ? How much will they cost? Can every organization make a living this way?
What you say is the opposite extreme, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Patterns are most useful when applied properly, and not just in software development. People have been using them for millennia in all sorts of industry.
|
|
|
|
|
I was investigating whether or not I wanted to use a repository pattern and stumbled across this video. He makes an interesting point about avoiding unnecessary abstractions, but after some thought I realized that the repository pattern isn't necessarily a bad thing. For example, it would allow me to develop entirely against an RDBMS, but at some point migrate some of my data storage to an alternate (e.g no-SQL) without - in theory - having to pull my application to pieces.
I also found it disingenuous to suggest avoiding libraries and abstractions then go on to use LINQ-SQL as an example of keeping things simple. I guess it is simpler in your application, but he should have recognized it for what it is.
There is also the potential for deviating from standards (e.g. logging and exception handling) if left to invidivual developers. It could be beneficial to collect all interactions with a data store in a repository so standards can be maintained consistently in one place.
In all in all, it is one person's opinion of better design and we all have one of our own that is better 
|
|
|
|
|
Keep your friends clothes and your enemies closets.
|
|
|
|
|
What if your enemies come out of their closets? Are you going to sock them one?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
No. Remove your 'friends clothes' to shock them...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
A better way to shock them is to remove your own clothes.
Maybe they'll also go blind or desperately cry for mind bleach.
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
|
|
|
|
|
Personal experience?
Pictures, or it didn't happen! On second thoughts...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Are you sure?
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Personal experience?
Thank *insert favourite sky pixie* no!
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Are you going to sock them one?
Not even if Aretha Franklin or her daughters were singing that.
|
|
|
|
|
My keen Lounge senses detect a BUQOTD*1 on the rise!
Cheers!
*1: Botched Up Quote Of The Day
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
|
|
|
|
|
I fear we are already reaching the point of OTD OCD. She canna take much more Captain!
|
|
|
|
|
With friends like that, who need enemas? 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: Anyone eating off of this menu
That "food" won't be flushed by an enema; it requires a stomach pump!
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: That "food" won't be flushed by an enema
Perhaps a fire-hose enema?  
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why! I actually would love a 3% income tax...
(I have an attached zero to it...By any means...)
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Be glad it's only one zero...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
It's a double zero - one for the rate and one for the benefit...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Wikipedia wrote: Income tax was first implemented in Great Britain by William Pitt the Younger in his budget of December 1798 to pay for weapons and equipment in preparation for the Napoleonic Wars. Pitt's new graduated (progressive) income tax began at a levy of 2 old pence in the pound (1/120) on incomes over £60 (£5,641 as of 2015),[7] and increased up to a maximum of 2 shillings (10%) on incomes of over £200.
So Lincoln stole the idea...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
