religious programming

[Paulo Pinto]

Hi,

you fail to see why this is this way.

Corporate code does not have a soul. Every code line needs to be understood 
by
everyone. Regardless if they have a PhD in computer science or just learned 
programming
on the weekends.

Plus the code needs to be simple enough, so that in the course of few months 
you are able
to transfer code ownership to any country in the world, depending on project 
budget.

This is one of the main reasons why the so called "blue collar" languages 
like Java thrive in
the enterprise world.

I don't like this, but it won't change.

If I sound too harsh, maybe I just had too many corporate projects in my 
life.

--
Paulo

"Gor Gyolchanyan" <gor.f.gyolchanyan at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.37.1318327068.24802.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
>I can't keep it in any more, I have to share.
>
> I've seen lots of corporate C++ code and coding guidelines and I came
> to the conclusion, that they're all bogus.
> The vast majority of code, being written in commercial projects use a
> very limited subset of the language they use.
> The code I work with currently is a purely object-oriented C++ code.
> I used to like object-oriented programming until I started working
> with that code.
> Corporate code is very religious. They use a few specialized
> techniques for everything.
> They use object-oriented programming when functional programming is
> the technique of choice.
> They use object-oriented programming when generic programming is the
> technique of choice.
> The code is unimaginably bloated, flooded with thousands of tiny
> redundant classes, each of which do a primitive task, which doesn't
> need to be a class at all.
> I've discussed D with my colleagues lately and the vast multi-paradigm
> and built-in featured of D were discarded with a religious "There's a
> class already written for that.".
> Why do I keep saying "religious"? Because they are convinced, that
> this is the way to go and do not accept any logical arguments.
> Why do I talk about this at all? Because corporate code is the one we
> need to become D.
> But this is not gonna happen with such religious attitude to programming.
> They say built-in arrays are useless, because there's always
> std::vector and std::list.
> They say, functional programming and lambdas are useless, because you
> can make functors and base classes for them.
> They say garbage collection is useless, because there's always 
> std::shared_ptr.
> Well, yes. You do have all that. But look what the code looks like and
> how fast it runs!
>
> It's amazing how stupid and ignorant can corporate developers be
> sometimes and how smart and considerate open-source developers can be.
> I don't know how to cure the people's minds from this religious
> plague, that poisons the software development industry.
>
> Can anyone help me out in this quest of enlightening people?