MarsHardcoreoptimal java experience
AlmightySnoo š¢š®š±šŗš¦I know the guy meant it as a joke but in my team I see the damage āacademicā OOP/UML courses do to a programmer. In a library thatās supposed to be high-performance code in C++ and does stuff like solving certain PDEs and performing heavy Monte-Carlo simulations, the guys with OOP/UML background tend to abuse dynamic polymorphism and write a lot of bad code with lots of indirections and many of them arenāt aware of the fact that virtual methods and
dynamic_castās have a price and an especially ugly one if you use them at every step of your iterative algorithm. Like the guy in the meme I certainly wouldnāt want to have someone in my team who was molded by Java and UML diagrams.
I think many academic courses are stuck with old OOP theories from the 90s, while the rest of the industry have learned from its failures long time ago and moved on with more refined OOP practices. Turns out inheritance is one of the worst ways to achieve OOP.
The Design Patterns book itself (for many an OO-Bible) spends the first 70 something pages going all about general good OO programming advice, including (repeatedly emphasised) that OO design should favour delegation over inheritance.
Personally for me (who started programming professionally in the 90s), that first part of the book is at least as important the rest of it.
However a lot of people seemed to have learn Patterns as fad (popularized by oh-so-many people who never read a proper book about it and seem to be at the end of a long chinese-whispers chain on what those things are all about), rather than as a set of tools to use if and when itās appropriate.
(Ditto for Agile, where so many seem to have learned loose practices from it as recipes, without understanding their actual purpose and applicability)
Iāll stop ranting now ;)