Hacker News Reader

Comment by diarrhea | Hacker News Reader

Do you have a concrete example by any chance?

Basically if the Jump function takes an Animal interface, the package that defines the jump function is the one that defines the Animal.Jump method. So if you provide it with whatever entity that has this method, it will just work. You don’t have to define the Animal interface in your Cat package. But if your cat does not Jump, it won’t be accepted. Of course you can also pass in a box that Jumps.

Most C# education will teach you to always make an interface for everything for some reason. Even in academia they’ll teach CS students to do this and well… it means there is an entire industry of people who think that over-engineering everything with needless abstractions is best practice.

It is what it is though. At least it’s fairly contained within the C# community in my part of the world.

Isn't that "for some reason" in C# being it's the standard way of doing dependency injection and being able to unit test/mock objects?

I've found it easier to work in C# codebases that just drank the Microsoft Kool-Aid with "Clean architecture" instead of Frankenstein-esque C# projects that decidedly could do it better or didn't care or know better.

Abstraction/design patterns can be abused, but in C#, "too many interfaces" doesn't seem that problematic.

I agree with you on this, my issue is mainly when they bring this thinking with them into other languages. I can easily avoid working with C# (I spent a decade working with it and I’d prefer to never work with it again), but it’s just such a pain in the ass to onboard developers coming from that world.

It may be the same for Java as GP mentioned it along with C#, but they tend to stay within their own little domain in my part of the world. By contrast C# is mostly used by mid-sized stagnant to failing companies which means C# developers job hop a lot. There is also a lot of them because mid-sized companies that end up failing love the shit out of C# for some reason and there are soooo many of those around here. Basically we have to un-learn almost everything a new hire knows about development or they’ve solely worked with C#.

> I've found it easier to work in C# codebases that just drank the Microsoft Kool-Aid with "Clean architecture" instead of Frankenstein-esque C# projects that decidedly could do it better or didn't care or know better.

I agree, for the most part. There's a little bit of a balance: if you just drink the kool-aid for top level stuff, but resist the urge to enter interface inception all the way down, you can get a decent balance.

e.g. on modern dotnetcore. literally nothing is stopping you from registering factory functions for concrete types without an interface with the out-of-the-box dependency injection setup. You keep the most important part, inversion of control. `services.AddTransient<MyConcreteClass>(provider => { return new MyConcreteClass(blah,blah,blah)});`

Reply on news.ycombinator.com