• GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’ve realized that Factories are actually kind of fine, in particular when contexualized as being the equivalent of partials from the world of functionals.

    • Serinus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      I have never seen them used well. I expect there IS some use case out there where it makes sense but I haven’t seen it yet. So many times I’ve seen factories that can only return one type. So why did you use a factory? And a factory that returns more than one type is 50/50 to be scary.

      Yeah, I went through the whole shape examples thing in school. The OOP I was taught in school was bullshit.

      Make it simpler. Organizing things into classes is absolutely fine. Seven layers of abstraction is typically not fine.

      • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Consider the following: You have a class A that has a few dependencies it needs. The dependencies B and C never change, but D will generally be different for each time the class needs to be used. You also happen to be using dependency injection in this case. You could either:

        • Inject the dependencies B and C for any call site where you need an instance of A and have a given D, or
        • Create an AFactory, which depends on B and C, having a method create with a parameter D returning A, and then inject that for all call sites where you have a given D.

        This is a stripped example, but one I personally have both seen and productively used frequently at work.

        In this case the AFactory could practically be renamed PartialA and be functionally the same thing.

        You could also imagine a factory that returns different implementations of a given interface based on either static (B and C in the previous example) or dynamic dependencies (D in the previous example).

        • Kache
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Sounds easy to simplify:

          Use one of: constructor A(d), function a(d), or method d.a() to construct A’s.

          B and C never change, so I invoke YAGNI and hardcode them in this one and only place, abstracting them away entirely.

          No factories, no dependency injection frameworks.

          • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            Now B and C cannot be replaced for the purposes of testing the component in isolation, though. The hardcoded dependency just increased the testing complexity by a factor of B * C.

            • Kache
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              That’s changing the goal posts to “not static”

    • Kache
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      IMO factory functions are totally fine – I hesitate to even give them a special name b/c functions that can return an object are not special.

      However I think good use cases for Factory classes (and long-lived stateful instances of) are scarce, often being better served using other constructs.

    • skulbuny@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I always call my little helper higher order functions (intended to be partially applied) factories :)