Comment by Ensorceled | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Ensorceled | Hacker News Reader

Inside this essay giving horrible advice, is more horrible advice:

> Even worse are those ubiquitous diagrams everybody uses to communicate about software, where there’s a box labeled OrdersService with an arrow connecting it to a box labeled OrderStatusService. I don’t understand why anybody draws those.

People like this are why there are documents with a thousand bullet points and no diagrams to help anyone actually visualize how this all fits together.

It's like a children's song ...

The foot bone connected to the leg bone, The leg bone connected to the knee bone, The knee bone connected to the thigh bone, The thigh bone connected to the back bone, The back bone connected to the neck bone, The neck bone connected to the head bone

And by the end of it you still don't know what you are dealing with.

This is a great diagnosis. I hate to assume things, but sometimes I almost get the impression that some software developers are pulling an "I am very smart" move by making things more cryptic than they need to be.

The ones who do that I've found to be less experienced. Once they've had to deal with their own bullshit, they tend to grow out of it. Even you don't know what that code you wrote a year ago is doing.

Yeah, the first couple of "I wish I could go back in time to my past self and punch that smug asshole right in the mouth for being too smart for my own good" moments cure that out of you, usually.

Sure but what to do if all the good names for doing the thing the thing is doing are taken ?

When faced with the same problem, Elon went with X Æ A-12.

Personally I prefer UUIDs for global uniqueness.

    c88990d0_c47e_4d8a_aa96_680d8b58192d_Service aka OrderService
    ca7f6516_337c_11ed_a261_0242ac120002_Service aka PaymentService

I don't see that working out in the long run...

If within the same system, you have multiples of "personService", "paymentService", and none them have unique features that can be used in the name, then you probably have a design problem.

Qualify the duplicate name with why you have a duplicate.

Already have Service and need Service? How bout NewService and Service instead. Or ${NEW_TRAIT}Service and Service. (can replace Service with any domain)

You could also just not duplicate and keep a single Service. Like other mentioned this is likely a design problem at any point names clash.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com