Yeah, what he said :-)
(joking aside, John has summed this all up very nicely...)
Chris
On 06/12/2012 00:57, John Lee wrote:
On Tue, 4 Dec 2012, Jonathan Hartley wrote:
The last few weeks I've been thinking about the architectural pattern
known as Clean, Onion, Hexagonal, or Ports'n'Adaptors
<http://blog.8thlight.com/uncle-bob/2012/08/13/the-clean-architecture.html>
(http://blog.8thlight.com/uncle-bob/2012/08/13/the-clean-architecture.html).
I'm curious if many people are applying it in the Django world?
I haven't, yet, but I'm thinking of refactoring a vertical slice of
our monster Django app into this style, and I'd love to hear if you
think it's crazy / brilliant / obvious / old-hat, etc.
I have to confess I've only very lightly skimmed the article (which
looks like it says some sensible things), but that's not going to stop
me pontificating in over-general terms and posting a video that I liked:
The best programmers I've worked with have a knack to ruthlessly pick
the simplest possible abstractions to fit the job in hand. They never
stop thinking to settle on any one-size-fits-all programming style. The
problem with those two statements I just made is that everybody can read
them and think that they agree with them. What *I* mean by simple is
close to what Rich Hickey means in the first part of this talk (though I
don't know enough to decide what I think about how he goes on to defend
Clojure and its design principles in those terms):
http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy
(BTW, it's a shame to hear him give security as an example of a
separable concern, because it isn't one)
The best code, you look at the functionality, then the code, and think
"where is all the code?" and "how did such simplistic code happen to
implement exactly what was needed?". That's different from the "OMG,
what is all this stuff for" feeling you get from over-engineered or just
badly-factored code. The best code is easy to change in the sense that
changes in functionality require commensurate coding effort, and it's
clear what code would have to change. But it is also hard to change, in
the sense that any change that leaves the behaviour the same would
clearly make it worse -- including adding or removing abstraction.
I'd agree with Andy that not fighting too many battles with your
framework has a lot to be said for it (and that it's maybe more
important to nail basic coding practices of the kind you'd find in Code
Complete than to take even a single step away from what the django
tutorial tells you to do). But even short programs can gain simplicity
from ignoring the framework or abstracting it a little, where it suits
the problem, as it often does.
John
_______________________________________________
python-uk mailing list
python-uk@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
_______________________________________________
python-uk mailing list
python-uk@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk
