Re: Why You Should NOT Implement Layered Architecture

[François Rey]

On 16/09/14 10:11, Kalina Todorova wrote: Relevant? Well it is always nice to find different articles that are bashing on the issues that could appear from badly designed OO programs if you want to get Clojure into consideration in your organization. That's exactly why I posted the link: it was intended to those looking for arguments in favor of clojure, or at least in favor of deconstructing the babel tower that OO and enterprise frameworks have become. This article is not really against abstractions, layering, and overall general OO constructs, but about their abuse in the hope of gaining some sort on insurance against hypothetical change. The guy that wrote it is not totally naive either as he authored JOOQ, a library aimed at making it easier to integrate SQL in java, short-circuiting the ORM approach by providing a fluent SQL API. A kind of sqlkorma in java. Also I consider such article to be an example of how gradually the functional thinking and practices are penetrating the OO world, that it's not just language features such as immutability and closures that are making it through, but also a mindset in which do-all frameworks and over-layered architectures become smells, and in which the case for clojure becomes easier to make. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.