FizzBuzzEnterpriseEdition

this needs a mention: https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

> I don't know about Java. It's very solvable in Java, as we see here: https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

That is the FP version of the classic https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris... . One can overengineer stuff in both FP and OOP.

> BusinessAbstractFactoryIBuilder While I understand and agree with this meme[1], I think that's the other extreme, where everything is a Factory Builder thing. Even so, I would rather too much information than too little, which is what FP programs tend to do. Over-abstraction is also a problem, in my view. Even in a LINQ lambda, for instance, I might write someEnumerable.Select(what_is_actually_inside => doSomething(what_is_actually_inside)) rather than someEnumerable.Select(x => doSomething(x)) [1]: https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

Agreed. Look how Java enables collaboration on large projects like FizzBuzz: https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

Reminds me of this old classic: https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

Enterprise Fizzbuzz (https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...) seems like a much more developed version of this

Obligatory Fizz-Buzz EE. https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

FizzBuzz Enterprise Edition [1] is an oldie but a goodie worth a re-mention. 1. https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

It's been a decade since I used C# but the corporate design pattern culture of that language back then turned me off of it forever. Everything looked like this: https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris... Maybe it's better now but the Java/C# practice of shoveling largely empty classes around with an IDE isn't something I'd point to as a good example.

That's very clever, but the OP's point is that you shouldn't try to be clever. Your life will be easier if the code is simple. When I read the initial example I can understand it in the time taken to read the code. With your example I had to think for about 1-2 min before it made sense. If the codebase is full of clever stuff then I have to spend hours understanding all of the clever things before I can make changes. If everything is simple then it's easy to change. If you want to see where overengineering leads you then take a look at this project. https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris... It is satire but I have absolutely worked in places that write code like that. Good programmers know that it's 10x times harder to read code than write it, so they deliberately keep it simple so that they can read it later.

I did something similar a 4 or so years back. I wrote something in a month (+ a couple of working with stakeholders to make sure it did what it should). I did it in a legacy tech stack that the architects didn't like, on the side of the main activity, as the deadline was coming close and some hireing processes were slow. A team of around devs 5 (some coming and going) having been trying to solve the same problem since, but they're still not being close to finished. In other words, the productivity is in the order 50x to 100x slower than when I did it. Rather, the main reason was that I knew how to write code like that, while they were set up to fail. Basically, some architect was making all sorts of unnecessary demands for how to wite the code, and the programers were not familiar with much of the tech stack that was introduced. Also, cod

How much structure would you like? https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

Enterprise FizzBuzz, obviously https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

I swear I've worked with people who if they were shown FizzBuzzEnterpriseEdition wouldn't be able to see the joke as that's how they naturally write all code. https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris... Things like this: static final int INT_1 = 1; I've actually seen production code with: static final string HTTPS = "https"; static final string COLON = ":"; static final string SLASH = "/";