m110

6 ms·

1.
by m110 28d ago
Makes sense, but this artifact is still a simplification, right? The domain model isn't just this one artifact in the code but the broader "idea".
2.
by m110 28d ago
Isn't code what defines the constraints though?
3.
by m110 2y ago
I noticed this frustration gets worse with a long feedback loop. I recently reworked a CI pipeline over two weeks, and it was a nightmare to make tiny changes, push it, and wait 5-10 minutes to see another error because of a YAML typo. If p
4.
Watermill 1.4 Released (Event-Driven Go Library)(threedots.tech)
4 points by m110 2y ago|0 comments
5.
by m110 3y ago
Take a look at: https://github.com/ThreeDotsLabs/wild-workouts-go-ddd-exampl... (I’m one of the authors.) This project shows how to apply more complex patterns popular in business applications while staying true to the
6.
by m110 3y ago
Thanks! I had a paragraph about delta time but since Ebitengine works based on the TPS, I eventually decided to drop it to not make it confusing. Here's a good summary, I think I'll link it in my post: https://ebitencoo
7.
by m110 3y ago
Oops, that was a leftover! Thank you :)
8.
by m110 3y ago
GetHarley | REMOTE | Europe | Senior Backend Engineer - Senior Frontend Engineer - Senior Data Engineer | Full-Time At GetHarley ( https://www.getharley.com/ ) we build the first platform that combines technology, clinicians,
9.
by m110 4y ago
Glad to hear that! :D As mentioned in the other comment, the heavy lifting is done by Ebitengine: https://ebitengine.org/en/documents/webassembly.html Go supports compiling to wasm, and it's as simple as:
10.
by m110 4y ago
It really was! There's something about moving sprites on screen that's super satisfying compared to using a big game engine. I definitely recommend trying out Ebitengine. :)
11.
by m110 4y ago
It's not a "serious" project. I chose Go specifically because I like the language (and Ebitengine is super fun to work with) and I like the idea behind ECS. I made games with Unity before, which you could consider a "ser
12.
by m110 4y ago
There are only two levels at the moment, it's still a prototype. :) And missing a "well done!" screen, obviously.
13.
by m110 4y ago
Thanks! The game is not really balanced at this point, it definitely could use some play testing and improvements. :)
14.
by m110 4y ago
Thank you! Go makes it ridiculously easy: GOOS=js GOARCH=wasm go build -o web/game.wasm
15.
Show HN: I made a 2D shoot 'em up game with Go, using Entity Component System(github.com)
108 points by m110 4y ago|26 comments
16.
by m110 5y ago
This is what the article mentions. It’s not about the tactical patterns, but the strategic ones. DDD is absolutely not about factories or dependency injection. It seems like you mix up Java with OOP design patterns and DDD and treat them al
17.
by m110 5y ago
Well, this is bascially what DDD proposes. To write code that reflects the domain, so even your manager understands it. But for some reason, when you call it by a name, people start saying you don’t need those dogmatic patterns. That’s my p
18.
by m110 5y ago
So you’re saying because software is a „craft” you can’t write down ideas how to do it better? Your bullet points are exactly this. The only thing that makes them different from „patterns” is you didn’t give them a name.
19.
by m110 5y ago
Can you share how to reach this understanding? How would you learn it if not from a set of patterns and guidelines? It’s like saying „write good software” without any advice how to do it.
20.
by m110 5y ago
DDD is just one way to do it. You can as well call it „Focus on what you’re solving instead of implementation details”. DDD just provides patterns to follow this approach. It’s easy to say „just write simple code”, but how do you do it? It’
21.
by m110 5y ago
Hey, you should receive links to the ebook in the first email after confirming subscription.
22.
by m110 5y ago
If you don't want to share your email, you can still read (almost) the same content on our blog. If you sign up, you'll have access to the most recent PDF, as we update the book with each new article.
23.
by m110 5y ago
> I realized its promoting patterns that aren't useful in most of "business applications built in Go" I don't really agree with this. I would say most of the patterns are quite useful in majority of business applicati
24.
by m110 5y ago
Hey, thanks for the comment. I hope this doesn't seem like we say it's the only valid way to build applications. We mention throughout the book where some patterns make sense, and where they're not needed. We also write abou
25.
by m110 5y ago
I think it's probably closer to the onion architecture, as DDD doesn't concern much about infrastructure. But it's kind of mixed up. You could also call it just SRP or separation of concerns. I think the advantage of sticking
26.
by m110 5y ago
Ah, I get it now. You meant in in the context of onion/clean/hexagonal architecture. :)
27.
by m110 5y ago
You can still read the articles on our blog, if you're interested. The book is based on them.
28.
by m110 5y ago
I think you mix some things up. go-kit is very far away from DDD. It even says on their website: "Focus on your business logic.". It's basically everything but not the domain code. For CRUD-y apps, you usually wouldn't n
29.
by m110 5y ago
Thanks for the tip! I think we already use xelatex, as the book is created with pandoc ( https://pandoc.org/ ).
30.
by m110 5y ago
Hey, these are good questions. > Aren’t the first 3 or 4 chapters basically what you can find in Google’s own cloud toturials? > Why does the domain-driven-design chapter come after you’ve tied the reader into GCP? I can’t think of a

More ›