Q&A Thread #7 – what are your questions for Corey Haines?

[Avdi Grimm]

Just a quick update to let everyone know that the guest this week is going to be the great Corey Haines!!! I’m excited.

[corey haines]

Hi, Folks! Look forward to chatting tomorrow. Please do put any questions in here!

[Peter Schmitt]

Another question not related to OOP. What have your experiences been working for a large corporate company, vs. small startup, vs. going out on your own?

If this is too open-ended then I can make it more specific & related to design practices: Considering both of you have worked for large corporate organizations, smaller startups and out on your own, does one type of company/sole proprietorship lend itself towards more time spent software design (OOP, system architecture, your personal desired tech stack, etc.) versus just turning the crank releasing features?

[Ross Reinhardt]

We have been talking about ways to connect our object together in the last week of the course, and one of the ways that we talked about what using a decorator to add functionality to an object that is tangential to it’s purpose. The example was a bank account object that accepted withdrawals and deposits and we wanted to add logging for those operations. One way to solve that was proposed and that was to wrap the object in a decorator (ruby SimpleDecorator) named AuditedAccount.

My question about using decorators is what if the requirement comes along that now (and I’m really stretching for an example here ) we want to have audited accounts that also are for residents of the Euro Zone. What if we wanted to solve this by wrapping an account in a EuroAccount decorator that returns values in Euros and then we also want it to be audited so we also wrap the EuroAccount with AuditedAccount. Lol, this is really contrived but is there flexibility for decorating an object, and then redecorating it with other decorators to add other functionality?

[Ross Reinhardt]

This is a bit of a more bizarre question but we have been talking recently as well about short lived objects and that using object and then throwing them away quickly is one way to guard against potential pitfalls of mutable state.

I was having a conversation with an experienced Ruby dev the other day, and we were discussing the api of a new Ruby lib that we were building. We were discussing whether we should have an instance like SomeLib.new(args).a_method or a class level method like SomeLib.a_method(args) and the other dev made the comment that he prefers using class level methods because in Ruby, instantiating an object adds overhead and is less performant. This is a library that will be called very often, so performance is important.

I was really unsure what to think of that I’m curious if you all have any insights into if instantiating Ruby objects is a potential performance pitfall compared to using class level methods?

[Ross Reinhardt]

Lol, so many questions you can skip some of my questions I’m asking too many

But since Corey Haines is joining us I noticed that you wrote a book about simple design and design that is open to change, which sounds really cool! I think that is one of the primary things I am striving for as I try to learn more about a programing paradigm like OOP. Is there any sage advice, pithy axioms, or general approaches that you have found helpful when trying to strive for a well designed system that is open to change?

[Bohdan Pohorilets]

What do you think about Object-Oriented views? (Dry::View, Cell::ViewModel etc.)

[Bohdan Pohorilets]

What is your favorite ORM? What downsides you’ve faced while using it?

[Andrei Crudu]

What are your best tips and tricks for getting good remote work?

[Andrei Crudu]

How has blogging, book writing and course creating change your career path? Does it make it easier to get better jobs, fun jobs, ask for more money etc more of the good stuff

Is it worth the effort?

[Bohdan Pohorilets]

@avdi awesome guest and an amazing session, thanks so much!