5 ms·

Something tells me that in 2021 a lot more people will identify DDD to mean Domain-Driven Design than the concept that you mentioned

cozzyd 6y ago
"man ddd" would disagree speaking of which, ddd is the only application I have installed that relies on motif...
- linsomniac 6y ago
  Wow, Motif. Speaking of overrated... I had mostly blocked it out of my head.
coldtea 6y ago
Your comment is a little funny because Domain-Driven Design is a concept, whereas DDD is an actual software that has existed for decades (a GDB front-end)....
buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
Something tells me that even more people would identify Domain-Driven Design as Domain-Driven Design.
bjohnson225 6y ago
You’re probably right, but it’s still better to spell it out in the title when a good percentage of readers will either be unfamiliar or think of something else.
kristopolous 6y ago
I was literally introduced to that term with this article while I've been using ddd off and on for 20 years Reading wikipedia it looks like one of those trivially stupidly obvious concepts wrapped in overly wordy academic terminology where they invent imaginary distinctions that have no differences in lived reality. Like this from wikipedia: "An individual bounded context leaves some problems in the absence of a global view. The context of other models may still be vague and in flux. People on other teams won't be very aware of the context bounds and will unknowingly make changes that blur the edges or complicate the interconnections. When connections must be made between different contexts, they tend to bleed into each other." I mean holy hell, did a markov chain write that? Let me translate: "yo, some specs are more locked down than others so try to make the code more flexible for the parts that are likely to change" that's it. In my experience people that wrap simple stuff in academic potpourri get absolutely nothing done and generate really defective bloated software at very high cost because their code is written in the same way: simple things done in confusing and incomprehensible ways. It's as if someone covered something as dumb as rocks with the maximum amount of bullshit possible where you can still just barely translate it to comprehensible English. I'm surprised there's no set theory equations in that wikipedia page, maybe a bit of lambda calculus. We should get on that. In fact, let's make a tool where you define your contexts in Haskell and then run it over your code like a linter to generate GraphML files so someone can run it through graphviz and print it out to put it on their wall to have in the background during their stand-ups so they can make themselves look super professional. Who cares if your deadlines slipped another month, you're clearly an authority! Other industries, like hairbraiding require certificates and licenses to protect their jobs. In software, instead, apparently, some people ornately festoon simple things with fancy language and hide it behind acronym soup. Go work on harder problems, seriously
- FieryTransition 6y ago
  Agreed, sounds like they are trying to say that two people in different settings can make changes without understanding the reasons. It could also be summed up with, "go talk to each other"
  - kristopolous 6y ago
    I summarize all those theories as "how to be a human". There's all these tech business books with titles like "Lean Innovation" and they must be written for people without the crudest socialization skills. It has flow charts, diagrams, tabular statistics, you know, to conclude groundbreaking things like "talking to at least one customer before releasing a product is a smart idea" or "don't waste time on unimportant things" I'm like "Dude, did you just want a section for your CV that says 'Recent Publications'?"
    - fenderbluesjr 6y ago
      I encourage you to read more.. Your take on the wikipedia article reads as as you had your decision made up beforehand. The words he uses, which you think are too elaborate, have specific definitions within the context of the book. Your 'summary' missed the mark completely
      - kristopolous 6y ago
        Of course they do. That's part of the theater. Some things are genuinely complicated and others are intentionally so. This is clearly something that is complicated by choice, not by necessity. All that "complicated by choice" leads to is fundamentalism and orthodoxy. People worry about whether their code matches the new sacred scripture over whether it works and then they shoehorn things into the form that don't belong there. They bake meaning onto code that's way out of scope of the project. It's like programmers Gematria. I've seen these all-knowing preachers write broken code and leave unmaintainable dumpster fires in their wake my whole career. Giant cathedral messes that barely do anything that all the customers complain about with endless academic blabbering everywhere and very little to show for it. It's a "type", more rare than others, but they're out there. If the results are better and the systems work sign me up. But if it's just another church of code with mere ceremony and internal logic, then yeah, have fun at mass.

cozzyd 6y ago

"man ddd" would disagree speaking of which, ddd is the only application I have installed that relies on motif...

linsomniac 6y ago
Wow, Motif. Speaking of overrated... I had mostly blocked it out of my head.

coldtea 6y ago

Your comment is a little funny because Domain-Driven Design is a concept, whereas DDD is an actual software that has existed for decades (a GDB front-end)....

buzzerbetrayed 6y ago

Something tells me that even more people would identify Domain-Driven Design as Domain-Driven Design.

bjohnson225 6y ago

You’re probably right, but it’s still better to spell it out in the title when a good percentage of readers will either be unfamiliar or think of something else.

kristopolous 6y ago

I was literally introduced to that term with this article while I've been using ddd off and on for 20 years Reading wikipedia it looks like one of those trivially stupidly obvious concepts wrapped in overly wordy academic terminology where they invent imaginary distinctions that have no differences in lived reality. Like this from wikipedia: "An individual bounded context leaves some problems in the absence of a global view. The context of other models may still be vague and in flux. People on other teams won't be very aware of the context bounds and will unknowingly make changes that blur the edges or complicate the interconnections. When connections must be made between different contexts, they tend to bleed into each other." I mean holy hell, did a markov chain write that? Let me translate: "yo, some specs are more locked down than others so try to make the code more flexible for the parts that are likely to change" that's it. In my experience people that wrap simple stuff in academic potpourri get absolutely nothing done and generate really defective bloated software at very high cost because their code is written in the same way: simple things done in confusing and incomprehensible ways. It's as if someone covered something as dumb as rocks with the maximum amount of bullshit possible where you can still just barely translate it to comprehensible English. I'm surprised there's no set theory equations in that wikipedia page, maybe a bit of lambda calculus. We should get on that. In fact, let's make a tool where you define your contexts in Haskell and then run it over your code like a linter to generate GraphML files so someone can run it through graphviz and print it out to put it on their wall to have in the background during their stand-ups so they can make themselves look super professional. Who cares if your deadlines slipped another month, you're clearly an authority! Other industries, like hairbraiding require certificates and licenses to protect their jobs. In software, instead, apparently, some people ornately festoon simple things with fancy language and hide it behind acronym soup. Go work on harder problems, seriously

FieryTransition 6y ago
Agreed, sounds like they are trying to say that two people in different settings can make changes without understanding the reasons. It could also be summed up with, "go talk to each other"
- kristopolous 6y ago
  I summarize all those theories as "how to be a human". There's all these tech business books with titles like "Lean Innovation" and they must be written for people without the crudest socialization skills. It has flow charts, diagrams, tabular statistics, you know, to conclude groundbreaking things like "talking to at least one customer before releasing a product is a smart idea" or "don't waste time on unimportant things" I'm like "Dude, did you just want a section for your CV that says 'Recent Publications'?"
  - fenderbluesjr 6y ago
    I encourage you to read more.. Your take on the wikipedia article reads as as you had your decision made up beforehand. The words he uses, which you think are too elaborate, have specific definitions within the context of the book. Your 'summary' missed the mark completely
    - kristopolous 6y ago
      Of course they do. That's part of the theater. Some things are genuinely complicated and others are intentionally so. This is clearly something that is complicated by choice, not by necessity. All that "complicated by choice" leads to is fundamentalism and orthodoxy. People worry about whether their code matches the new sacred scripture over whether it works and then they shoehorn things into the form that don't belong there. They bake meaning onto code that's way out of scope of the project. It's like programmers Gematria. I've seen these all-knowing preachers write broken code and leave unmaintainable dumpster fires in their wake my whole career. Giant cathedral messes that barely do anything that all the customers complain about with endless academic blabbering everywhere and very little to show for it. It's a "type", more rare than others, but they're out there. If the results are better and the systems work sign me up. But if it's just another church of code with mere ceremony and internal logic, then yeah, have fun at mass.