FizzBuzzEnterpris VS component

> 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.

* Lifecycle management: Mount, Integrant or Component (https://github.com/tolitius/mount https://github.com/weavejester/integrant and https://github.com/stuartsierra/component)

When you start to have multiple stateful components (the database, the HTTP server, your Redis connection, a page cache, etc.), then you'll want to use a library like component that manages their (inter-)dependencies and provides a consistent notion of lifecycle.

Today I released a new version of Reveal Pro — dev.vlaaad/reveal-pro {:mvn/version "1.3.308"} — that adds sticker integration for system libraries such as mount, component and integrant!

I agree with the main sentiment from the article. Although I do think they are discussing Inversion of control more-so than dependency injection.

One of my first languages was .net and I was never able to really understand DI in that context that well.

Actually using javascript and ducktyping made me understand what it actually was.

I remember a .net job interview where I had to write a micro-service and opted to construct the dependency graph in the main function initialising "all" the classes there. Instead of discussing the pro's and con's of that approach they berated me for not using a DI framework (No I did not land that job, but in hindsight it was the most expensive job interview I've ever had. The room was filled with 8 developers going over my code).

The main thing the article glosses over is state. something people with a functional background hide from. But if you look at something like the httpclient in .net. I think it took the .net world like 10 years to start using the httpclient properly. Scope and lifetime of those kind of objects are important. managing connection pools, retry state, throttling or the incoming http request. DI does make that kind of thing easieR (I'm not saying it makes it better)

Look at clojure's component(https://github.com/stuartsierra/component), I'm not a clojure expert by far. But it is kinda DI/IOC in a functional language.

In closing we can agree that it is underused in the right places and overused in the wrong ones.

https://github.com/stuartsierra/component#no-function-should-take-the-entire-system-as-an-argument

Yeah like I mentioned I'm not like super sold on the everything-should-be-an-actor paradigm, but I find value in DDD + a light implementation of Components (similar to stuartsierra/component).

https://github.com/stuartsierra/component for managing components lifecycles in projects