Comment by coldtea

2 days ago

>Instead of considering that something should be written encapsulated into an object to maintain state, it will instead write 5 functions, passing the state as parameters between each function.

Sounds very functional, testable, and clean. Sign me up.

6 comments

coldtea

Reply
the_sleaze_  2 days ago

I know this is tongue in cheek, but writing functional code in an object oriented language, or even worse just taking a giant procedural trail of tears and spreading it across a few files like a roomba through a pile of dog doo is ... well.. a code smell at best.

I have a user prompt saved called clean code to make a pass through the changes and remove unused, DRY and refactor - literally the high points of uncle bob's Clean Code. It works shockingly well at taking AI code and making it somewhat maintainable.

  • KptMarchewa  1 day ago

    >I know this is tongue in cheek, but writing functional code in an object oriented language, or even worse just taking a giant procedural trail of tears and spreading it across a few files like a roomba through a pile of dog doo is ... well.. a code smell at best.

    After forcing myself over years to apply various OOP principles using multiple languages, I believe OOP has truly been the worst thing to happen to me personally as engineer. Now, I believe what you actually see is just an "aesthetics" issue, moreover it's purely learned aesthetics.

  • zx8080  2 days ago

    Does its output follow the "no comments needed" principle of the uncle Bob?

  • coldtea  1 day ago

    Not so much tongue in cheek, but a little on the light side, sure.

    I'd argue writing functional code in C++ (which is multi-paradigm anyway), or Java, or Typescript is fine!