FizzBuzzEnterpris VS ponyc

> I'll answer your question with a question: Have you seen https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris... ? :)

You can write that kind of crap in any language, including C++.

There’s a difference between complexity that’s inherent to the problem, and complexity that’s added by developers who have drunk architectural cool aid.

This is an example where all of the complexity is caused by rigid adherence to the most popular architectural patterns of about 10 years ago.

https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

It looks completely ridiculous to modern eyes, but during peak OOP it was just how you should do it.

If you like simplicity then your fizz buzz implementation would be a few lines.

https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris... isn't too far removed from some of what I've seen in big tech, especially architecture-wise. Certainly less costly absurdity.

What you need is Fizzbuzz, Enterprise Edition

https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

It's been a decade since I used C# but the corporate design pattern culture of that language back then turned me off of it forever.

Everything looked like this: https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

Maybe it's better now but the Java/C# practice of shoveling largely empty classes around with an IDE isn't something I'd point to as a good example.

```

With your example I had to think for about 1-2 min before it made sense. If the codebase is full of clever stuff then I have to spend hours understanding all of the clever things before I can make changes. If everything is simple then it's easy to change.

If you want to see where overengineering leads you then take a look at this project. https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

It is satire but I have absolutely worked in places that write code like that.

Good programmers know that it's 10x times harder to read code than write it, so they deliberately keep it simple so that they can read it later.

I did something similar a 4 or so years back. I wrote something in a month (+ a couple of working with stakeholders to make sure it did what it should). I did it in a legacy tech stack that the architects didn't like, on the side of the main activity, as the deadline was coming close and some hireing processes were slow.

A team of around devs 5 (some coming and going) having been trying to solve the same problem since, but they're still not being close to finished.

In other words, the productivity is in the order 50x to 100x slower than when I did it. Rather, the main reason was that I knew how to write code like that, while they were set up to fail.

Basically, some architect was making all sorts of unnecessary demands for how to wite the code, and the programers were not familiar with much of the tech stack that was introduced.

Also, coding standards were really verbose, easily 10x-30x what I wrote, in lines of code. The current state of what they have look suspiciously like FizzBuzzEnterpriseEdition:

https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

TLDR; Incompetent tech leadership prone to cargo-culting, can slow down productivity to virtually zero. In some cases, productivity can go up by ~100x if ignoring their demands.

I swear I've worked with people who if they were shown FizzBuzzEnterpriseEdition wouldn't be able to see the joke as that's how they naturally write all code.

https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

Reminds me of FizzBuzzEnterpriseEdition . https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

You never know when you might need to change the implementation of how the "Fuzz" string is returned, so you need a FuzzStringReturner.

And you never know when you might need multiple different ways of returning "Fuzz", so you need a FuzzStringReturnerFactory.

And that barely scratches the surface of what you need.

For example, the actor's model is not used by a lot of languages, Pony (https://www.ponylang.io/) and Elixir are the only ones that I know, but they address the concurrency problem quite well, while it's a pain to deal with in other languages at large scale.

And that last point is critical. If the language flatly can't represent some concepts it uses, they have to be implemented somewhere else. I had a similar discussion with a proponent for Pony once- the language itself is 100% safe, and fully dependent on C for its runtime and data structures. One of Rust's core strengths is being able to express unsafe concepts, meaning the unsafe code can expose a safe interface that accurately describes its requirements rather than an opaque C ABI. Vale doesn't seem to do that.

"Exterior iteration. Iteration used to be by stack / non-escaping coroutines, which we also called "interior" iteration, as opposed to "exterior" iteration by pointer-like things that live in variables you advance. Such coroutines are now finally supported by LLVM (they weren't at the time) and are actually a fairly old and reliable mechanism for a linking-friendly, not-having-to-inline-tons-of-library-code abstraction for iteration. They're in, like, BLISS and Modula-2 and such. Really normal thing to have, early Rust had them, and they got ripped out for a bunch of reasons that, again, mostly just form "an argument I lost" rather than anything I disagree with today. I wish Rust still had them. Maybe someday it will!"

I remember that one. The change was shortly after I started fooling with Rust and was major. Major as in it broke all the code that I'd written to that point.

"Async/await. I wanted a standard green-thread runtime with growable stacks -- essentially just "coroutines that escape, when you need them too"."

I remember that one, too; it was one of the things that drew me to the language---I was imagining something more like Pony (https://www.ponylang.io/).

"The Rust I Wanted probably had no future, or at least not one anywhere near as good as The Rust We Got."

Almost certainly true. But The Rust We Got is A Better C++, which was never appealing to me because I never liked C++ anyway.

Pony or bust.

If you have a value in mutable storage, and want to treat it as an immutable parameter without copying it first, you will need to provide some way to guarantee that it won't be mutated while being treated as immutable! There doesn't seem to be a definitive best way to do that (although the likes of Pony make a try at it).

The love child of Erlang and Rust exists already: Pony.

https://www.ponylang.io

It really is the best of both languages... unfortunately, the main supporter of Pony seems to have stopped using it in favour of Rust though :D.

But if that's really what you want, Pony is your language. It definitely deserves more love.

You can actually try to have a magic language which "does not ignore decades of PL research" but you are likely to get either something broken or a project that is likely not going to release in our lifetime.

Never a bad time to plug Pony lang[1] - a safety-oriented actor-model language. In addition to the numerous safety guarantees, you also get a beautiful syntax and automatic memory management. Really a great language that often gets overshadowed by Rust's hype-turfing.

[1]: https://www.ponylang.io/