Stop Writing Classes

I read this book: [link] While doing these labs: [link] Also a colleague made me watch this from Jack Diederich: ▶ this video

in “Ask HN: What has improved You as a Developer?” · View on HN

Hickey gives great talks, but I also really liked Jack Diederich's talk "stop writing classes" at PyCon 2012 ▶ this video

in “Ask HN: What's the best technical talk you've heard?” · View on HN

Type hints encourage this sort of object-oriented design though, in my experience. The resulting code is extremely verbose compared to Pythonic "executable pseudocode". For example, see Jack Diederich's talk "Stop Writing Classes": ▶ this video

in “Python type hints may not be not for me in practice” · View on HN

I strongly disagree. You should always keep the code as simple as possible and only add abstractions once you really need them. Too many times I've found huge applications that it turns out be most scaffolding and fancy abstractions without any business logic. My biggest achievement is to delete code. 1. I've successfully removed 97% of all code while adding new features. 2. I replaced 500 lines with 17 lines (suddently you could fit it on a screen and understand what it did) Also: ▶ this video

in “What 10k Hours of Coding Taught Me: Don't Ship Fast” · View on HN

Its onlt recently that classes are embraced by python community. Before that dictionaries where seen as pythonic and classes where not. ▶ this video

in “Pydantic” · View on HN

"Lots of times people think they might need something later. You don't. Or you can just do it later if it comes up." ▶ this video For glue code scripts like this you usually don't end up using encapsulation and inheritance or any other fancy OOP design patterns. It's usually grungy IO-bound procedural code, the sort of thing you'd write in bash if bash weren't terrible for long scripts. Don't burden it with premature abstractions. If you end up needing a class, just write the class later.

in “Do-nothing scripting: the key to gradual automation (2019)” · View on HN

“So I spent a week doing OAuth2 stuff. It took a couple days to read through [Google’s] ten-thousand lines of code, so then I went and looked for other libraries. There's `python-oauth2`... it's the second version of python-oauth, it doesn't actually do OAuth2. But that took a while to figure out. So that one was a little bit better, 540 source lines of code, 15 classes, but I wasn’t going to put that in either because it didn’t actually do what I needed to do. So I rewrote that to just do bearer-token authentication, it’s ‘python-foauth,’ or if you prefer, ‘eff oauth.’” -- Jack Diederich, “Stop Writing Classes”, ▶ this video

in “Semver doesn't mean major.minor.patch, it means fails.features.bugs” · View on HN

> But my instinct tells me a node will eventually have more attributes and methods. I couldn't agree more with Jack Diederich's thoughts on that sentiment, at 5:40 in the video linked above: ▶ this video > Lots of times people think they might need something later. You don't. Or, you can just do it later.

in “Learning Ruby: Things I Like, Things I Miss from Python” · View on HN

It reminds me of a pycon talk [0] which, while i dont agree with the whole thing, has the message "we ship features, not code". That also reminds me of "when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure". LOC is a decent measure, but features are our targets [0] ▶ this video

in “You've only added two lines – why did that take two days?” · View on HN

Also known in python as "if your class has only two methods, one of which is init, it's a function" in the "stop writing classes" ▶ this video EDIT: typo, changed link

in “The use of `class` for things that should be simple free functions” · View on HN

>That assumes that all of this complexity was done for complexity’s sake. Or they just don't know any better. ▶ this video

in “Old CSS, New CSS” · View on HN

Growing a Python codebase like you would a Java/C# one (i.e. with tons of classes, interfaces, factories etc.) is a sure way to pull your hair out. However, Python provides a bit of metaprogramming that could drastically reduce the number of LOC needed, should you write it in a Pythonic way. That is, experienced Python programmers could write concise and performant Python code in less or at worst equal time as experienced Java/C# programmers. But if you hire Java/C# devs to write Python code, I can see how you could arrive at your conclusion. Bonus video: ▶ this video

in “Ask HN: What made you change your mind about a programming language/paradigm?” · View on HN

"The signature of 'this shouldn't be a class' is that it has two methods, one of which is __init__." [0] Why not write a function? This addresses all of the objections. Then refactor by pulling out concerns into other functions. Need to share logic around the functions? Use a decorator. Passing too many attributes? Create a class to contain them. I think classes are best avoided until it's obvious that encapsulating state provides a benefit, which I don't see in this case. [0] ▶ this video

in “Why Ruby Class Methods Resist Refactoring” · View on HN

I like this trend towards values instead of objects, Rich's talk is really worth watching too [link] . Using this approach in UIs is stretching the idea even further into a realm where I previously thought OO had a sweet spot. I still like to convince myself, though, as to why this approach makes sense over the traditional OO / encapsulation approach. My current line of reasoning is that while having well defined services and interfaces can help organize a software system, the actual arguments and return values of these end points are really better thought of as values - and the expected structure of these values can certainly be part of the API. You just don't force people to construct and destruct objects for everything you are passing around. A couple of related resources on this topic: "Stop writing classes" from PyCon ▶ this video Rob Pike's reflection on using data vs OO: [link]

in “The IDE as a value” · View on HN