I feel like this axiom is true in general.
Don't write [insert lang here] like it's Java.
I've seen this in Ruby code bases, TS code bases, even Erlang code bases (using gen servers like an OO primative.)
Don't write [insert lang here] like it's Java.
I've seen this in Ruby code bases, TS code bases, even Erlang code bases (using gen servers like an OO primative.)
Of course what's being picked upon is a specific kind of Java code. It's better to be specific than technically incorrect, as all written Java is Java regardless of how you write it. The article goes a good job (comments here less so), except for this bit:
> While not entirely accurate, there’s some truth to the trope that Java developers need everything to be an interface (I am one such developer).
That's not just Java, that's Dogma.
What does work for me is writing in most languages (Java included) as if they're functional ones without lots of variable reassignment or data mutation.
Maybe there's a certain safety in doing thing how they've always been done - even if that seems backwards to me.