Thank you for saying this. I don't consider myself some kind of 10x dev. Hell, most days I feel like a 0.1x dev. But, sometimes I can't help but feel like "everyone else" is doing it wrong.
The cargo cult has been wrong many times in the past, yet if you go against today's cargo cult, they act like you're insane. Do we not learn our lessons? Or at least accept that maybe today's "best practices" won't always be considered as such?
Let's keep in mind that if any of us had said anything about OOP being overrated in the 90s and 00s, we'd have been laughed out of the room. It was "obvious" that OOP was the best way to write reliable, maintainable, projects. Now, it's almost the opposite: it's super cool to write a blog post shitting on OOP (while almost never actually defining it...).
Likewise, it was "obvious" that statically typed programming languages were just tedious and getting in our way, so let's write everything in Python, Perl, and JavaScript. Except that now, most people seem to be in the opposite camp: it's all about Rust, Swift, TypeScript, etc.
I hate ORMs. Every single one I've tried feels like a bad abstraction and doesn't really do what I want.
For added, unrelated, controversy, I think Java's checked exceptions are a good language feature, and I absolutely don't care that the creator of C# did an interview 12 years ago declaring them bad. I'm vindicated every time I see someone praise Rust's Result type, or when I see someone write a TypeScript or Kotlin library that implements a Result/Either type. We're moving back toward statically declaring how a function may fail and trying to force the caller to deal with it. It's exactly the same as checked exceptions.
I have also seen some laughably bad and inefficient code written in non-functional languages just for the sake of writing in functional style, when it does absolutely nothing to actually increase the quality of the code/project. FP will absolutely be ridiculed in ten years, the same way OOP is being ridiculed today.
The cargo cult has been wrong many times in the past, yet if you go against today's cargo cult, they act like you're insane. Do we not learn our lessons? Or at least accept that maybe today's "best practices" won't always be considered as such?
Let's keep in mind that if any of us had said anything about OOP being overrated in the 90s and 00s, we'd have been laughed out of the room. It was "obvious" that OOP was the best way to write reliable, maintainable, projects. Now, it's almost the opposite: it's super cool to write a blog post shitting on OOP (while almost never actually defining it...).
Likewise, it was "obvious" that statically typed programming languages were just tedious and getting in our way, so let's write everything in Python, Perl, and JavaScript. Except that now, most people seem to be in the opposite camp: it's all about Rust, Swift, TypeScript, etc.
I hate ORMs. Every single one I've tried feels like a bad abstraction and doesn't really do what I want.
For added, unrelated, controversy, I think Java's checked exceptions are a good language feature, and I absolutely don't care that the creator of C# did an interview 12 years ago declaring them bad. I'm vindicated every time I see someone praise Rust's Result type, or when I see someone write a TypeScript or Kotlin library that implements a Result/Either type. We're moving back toward statically declaring how a function may fail and trying to force the caller to deal with it. It's exactly the same as checked exceptions.
I have also seen some laughably bad and inefficient code written in non-functional languages just for the sake of writing in functional style, when it does absolutely nothing to actually increase the quality of the code/project. FP will absolutely be ridiculed in ten years, the same way OOP is being ridiculed today.
/rant