this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2023
9 points (68.0% liked)

C Sharp

1526 readers
4 users here now

A community about the C# programming language

Getting started

Useful resources

IDEs and code editors

Tools

Rules

Related communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Isn't this an entire class of problems that's avoidable by using strict DDD-style entities?

You don't have the same "purists" OOP problems, you don't have extension methods to get lost in, you don't have publicly mutable state, and you have a clear surface area for state changes. And your ORM is happy.

Purists OOP has all sorts of issues, more procedural, pragmatic, approaches can alleviate that pain. And strict entities provide the same surface area as the functional approach, without concerns over breaking ORM tracking. With the added benefits of closely guarding local state.


Opinion time.

This is less "what you can't do in OOP" and more "what you can't do if you use OOP design as dogma" ๐Ÿค”. Perhaps that's an important distinction to make, depending on your viewership, but to me this feels like a solution looking for a contrived problem.

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree that this is a solution looking for a problem. I still think the way he explores the limits of the language is food for thought. And the fact that this is at all possible makes C# a fun language to work with.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Oh definitely. I have some gripes with C# as a language that I wish for better. But it's extremely flexible.