@agressivelyPassive moving from ‘storing a user in postgres’ to ‘storing anything in postgres’ is a step up in abstraction. Same with moving to ‘storing a user somewhere’ or moving to ‘storing anything anywhere’.
Moving from ‘storing an entity’ to ‘storing an entity via a FacadeBuilderFactory’ is not a step up in abstraction, it’s only an extra indirection.
abstraction != indirection. Abstraction allows you to do a deferred architecture: store this user “somehow”. Indirection is just early architecture with more steps: MyUserDatabase class is coupled to one way of doing things - it’s concrete, not abstract.
yet another article advocating ‘pure functional’ flavour, not a pure functional PL. Recommending purity in an impure language is like recommending memory safety in C. All the work is on the programmer.
@vitonsky this link is political. Do not click it! (You know, for security reasons)
> Given the nature of JS running only on a single thread.
No no, I think you found the language flaw.
@Kecessa no you missed my point. You change the behaviour of the producer, not the consumer.
@eveninghere @ruffsl that claim’s correct. But so far it doesn’t have great performance on a single core.
I believe that the trick is not to show the developers the bill.
Let the developers all tell each other “it’s cheap because you don’t have to buy the servers; you only pay for what you use!”
Only managers see the real price.
@agressivelyPassive if you routinely call indirections abstractions, then ‘premature abstraction is the root of all evil’ holds. If you separate the two concepts, you might think differently.
If my team’s codebase had a business logic class that had a concrete dependency on an EntityBuilderFactory, I’d vomit a little, but I wouldn’t delete it (can’t piss off too many people all the time). But I would route around the damage by allowing the class to depend on the EBF *or* something else.