FizzBuzzEnterpriseEdition

I think reaching the correct solution is one of the least important parts of a technical interview. I've interviewed candidates who will write the equivalent of enterprise level fizz buzz [0] and get to a correct solution, and candidates who will write much simpler code, but not quite solve the problem (it's a longer problem than fizzbuzz). I feel like I get better signal off the latter, as we can spend more time discussing their ideas, Vs writing boilerplate. [0] https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

Obligatory “huge” code base with many many layers of abstraction: https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

Finally understanding the appeal of static typed languages after doing a project in Go using Goland. I always thought I loved the freedom of python and JavaScript (and I still do to some extent, you’ll have to take Django from my cold dead hands). But the power of static type becomes super clear when you’re using a great IDE. I can hit a hot key when hovering over any function and it’ll show me the docs and take me to the full page if I want. Hitting another hotkey it’ll auto fill parameter options. It’ll auto import the libraries I need. It’ll complain if I’m using the wrong type. It gives me so much more confidence that the code I’m writing will actually work. It’s slightly more of a pain to write, no doubt about that, but the payoff is huge. I was burnt by java in the past and can’t stand how every project seems to end up like this ht

> OOP makes people agree on "where should we put this block of code" in a way that's "intuitive" and scales. This is the opposite conclusion of Brian Will's Object-Oriented Programming is Bad video. Since it forces you to think about everything as a real-world "object", OOP often leads to philosophical debates like Should a Message send() itself? Should a Sender send() Messages? Should a Receiver receive() Messages? Should a Connection transmit() Messages? With more and more abstract OOP constructs with more and more interaction with the rest of the program, knowing where to put the relevant code becomes more and more difficult. FizzBuzzEnterpriseEdition[1], while it is satire, is quite similar to a lot of large Java codebases that have been through the wringer of alternating cycles of OOAD and code rot. Try to find the right bit of code

Disclaimer: the following method may not work if your library is public facing, as breaking changes to public API is usually a terrible idea. Ask yourself the following questions: * Are you an experienced developer on this particular problem domain? * Do you have good understanding of the future use cases, and the data structure when the new feature is added? * Will the new feature make business or technological sense? Unless you have a concrete “yes” on all questions above, your design should go minimalistic. Without good understand of the new feature, the code base will likely need refactoring when the feature is implemented. Your effort of going the extra mile (which definitely should be applauded!) is better spent on making the code easier to read and refactor - better tests, better documentation, code review to propagate knowledge a

And also, the idea of "architecture astronauts", in the text written almost 20 years ago: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/04/21/dont-let-architect... "Why the hell are people so impressed by boring architectures that often amount to nothing more than a new format on the wire for RPC, or a new virtual machine? These things might be good architectures, they will certainly benefit the developers that use them, but they are not, I repeat, not, a good substitute for the messiah riding his white ass into Jerusalem, or world peace." "Remember that the architecture people are solving problems that they think they can solve, not problems which are useful to solve. Soap + WSDL may be the Hot New Thing, but it doesn’t really let you do anything you couldn’t do before using other technologies — if you had a reason to. All that Distributed Service

Someone looking for the unbeatable https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris... ?

https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris... FizzBuzz Enterprise Edition is a no-nonsense implementation of FizzBuzz made by serious businessmen for serious business purposes.

Complexity can easily be manufactured. Comparing it to something as fundamental as energy is pure bollocks. Heres an amusing and simple example of manufactured complexity: https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

Surely someone needs to mention FizzBuzzEnterpriseEdition [1], which is clearly the best resource in this domain? Don't ignore the issues, true gold in there :) [1] https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

I think the comment was a little tongue-in-cheek -- like FizzBuzz is a problem without much inherent complexity, but you can certainly you make an overly complex solution: https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...