Is there a name for practise of avoiding using programing langue types?
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I try to convince coworkers to stop writing code like this (example in java):
class Person {
Long id;
String name;
String surname;
}
and write code like this:
class Person {
PersonId id;
PersonName name;
PersonSurname surname;
}
Basically, I want to avoid overusing Strings', Longs' and use dedicated types that correspond to a domain. This is not a new concept, methodology or practise (however you call it), so it probably already have a name. There probably are many people who have already written pros and cons of such approach, but I cannot find any, because I do not know what to look for.
design-patterns
edited Nov 21 at 6:39
Nghia Bui
1,443812
asked Nov 20 at 12:52
M314
4381828
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I try to convince coworkers to stop writing code like this (example in java):
class Person {
Long id;
String name;
String surname;
}
and write code like this:
class Person {
PersonId id;
PersonName name;
PersonSurname surname;
}
Basically, I want to avoid overusing Strings', Longs' and use dedicated types that correspond to a domain. This is not a new concept, methodology or practise (however you call it), so it probably already have a name. There probably are many people who have already written pros and cons of such approach, but I cannot find any, because I do not know what to look for.
design-patterns
edited Nov 21 at 6:39
Nghia Bui
1,443812
asked Nov 20 at 12:52
M314
4381828
1
It's usually called 'stringly typed'.
– Lee
Nov 20 at 13:02
Personally, I think the first example is fine. I would not call that stringly-typed programming so long as thePersonobject is being passed around and not its individual fields.
– jaco0646
Nov 26 at 18:16
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I try to convince coworkers to stop writing code like this (example in java):
class Person {
Long id;
String name;
String surname;
}
and write code like this:
class Person {
PersonId id;
PersonName name;
PersonSurname surname;
}
Basically, I want to avoid overusing Strings', Longs' and use dedicated types that correspond to a domain. This is not a new concept, methodology or practise (however you call it), so it probably already have a name. There probably are many people who have already written pros and cons of such approach, but I cannot find any, because I do not know what to look for.
design-patterns
edited Nov 21 at 6:39
Nghia Bui
1,443812
asked Nov 20 at 12:52
M314
4381828
I try to convince coworkers to stop writing code like this (example in java):
class Person {
Long id;
String name;
String surname;
}
and write code like this:
class Person {
PersonId id;
PersonName name;
PersonSurname surname;
}
Basically, I want to avoid overusing Strings', Longs' and use dedicated types that correspond to a domain. This is not a new concept, methodology or practise (however you call it), so it probably already have a name. There probably are many people who have already written pros and cons of such approach, but I cannot find any, because I do not know what to look for.
design-patterns
design-patterns
edited Nov 21 at 6:39
Nghia Bui
1,443812
asked Nov 20 at 12:52
M314
4381828
edited Nov 21 at 6:39
Nghia Bui
1,443812
asked Nov 20 at 12:52
M314
4381828
edited Nov 21 at 6:39
Nghia Bui
1,443812
edited Nov 21 at 6:39
Nghia Bui
1,443812
edited Nov 21 at 6:39
Nghia Bui
1,443812
1,443812
asked Nov 20 at 12:52
M314
4381828
asked Nov 20 at 12:52
M314
4381828
asked Nov 20 at 12:52
M314
4381828
4381828
1
It's usually called 'stringly typed'.
– Lee
Nov 20 at 13:02
Personally, I think the first example is fine. I would not call that stringly-typed programming so long as thePersonobject is being passed around and not its individual fields.
– jaco0646
Nov 26 at 18:16
add a comment |
1
It's usually called 'stringly typed'.
– Lee
Nov 20 at 13:02
Personally, I think the first example is fine. I would not call that stringly-typed programming so long as thePersonobject is being passed around and not its individual fields.
– jaco0646
Nov 26 at 18:16
1
1
It's usually called 'stringly typed'.
– Lee
Nov 20 at 13:02
It's usually called 'stringly typed'.
– Lee
Nov 20 at 13:02
Personally, I think the first example is fine. I would not call that stringly-typed programming so long as the
Person object is being passed around and not its individual fields.– jaco0646
Nov 26 at 18:16
Personally, I think the first example is fine. I would not call that stringly-typed programming so long as the
Person object is being passed around and not its individual fields.– jaco0646
Nov 26 at 18:16
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
Yes, the name of that practise is Avoiding Primitive Obsession.
According to this article:
The Smell: Primitive Obsession is using primitive data types to represent domain ideas. For example, we use a String to represent a message, an Integer to represent an amount of money, or a Struct/Dictionary/Hash to represent a specific object.
The Fix: Typically, we introduce a ValueObject in place of the primitive data.
The Tools: Some languages make this easier or harder on you.
In languages like C# and Java it can be painful to create hundred of tiny types just wrapping a simple string or int. For example you will have a lot of classes like this:
class PersonName {
public String value;
public PersonName(String value) {
this.value = value;
}
}
But in ML languages like F#, it is trivial to create simple wrapper types:
type PersonName = PersonName of string
Some good articles on the topic:
- https://refactoring.guru/smells/primitive-obsession
- https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/365017/when-is-primitive-obsession-not-a-code-smell
- http://codemonkeyism.com/never-never-never-use-string-in-java-or-at-least-less-often/
- https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/posts/designing-with-types-single-case-dus/
answered Nov 21 at 3:28
Nghia Bui
1,443812
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53393431%2fis-there-a-name-for-practise-of-avoiding-using-programing-langue-types%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
Yes, the name of that practise is Avoiding Primitive Obsession.
According to this article:
The Smell: Primitive Obsession is using primitive data types to represent domain ideas. For example, we use a String to represent a message, an Integer to represent an amount of money, or a Struct/Dictionary/Hash to represent a specific object.
The Fix: Typically, we introduce a ValueObject in place of the primitive data.
The Tools: Some languages make this easier or harder on you.
In languages like C# and Java it can be painful to create hundred of tiny types just wrapping a simple string or int. For example you will have a lot of classes like this:
class PersonName {
public String value;
public PersonName(String value) {
this.value = value;
}
}
But in ML languages like F#, it is trivial to create simple wrapper types:
type PersonName = PersonName of string
Some good articles on the topic:
- https://refactoring.guru/smells/primitive-obsession
- https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/365017/when-is-primitive-obsession-not-a-code-smell
- http://codemonkeyism.com/never-never-never-use-string-in-java-or-at-least-less-often/
- https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/posts/designing-with-types-single-case-dus/
answered Nov 21 at 3:28
Nghia Bui
1,443812
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
Yes, the name of that practise is Avoiding Primitive Obsession.
According to this article:
The Smell: Primitive Obsession is using primitive data types to represent domain ideas. For example, we use a String to represent a message, an Integer to represent an amount of money, or a Struct/Dictionary/Hash to represent a specific object.
The Fix: Typically, we introduce a ValueObject in place of the primitive data.
The Tools: Some languages make this easier or harder on you.
In languages like C# and Java it can be painful to create hundred of tiny types just wrapping a simple string or int. For example you will have a lot of classes like this:
class PersonName {
public String value;
public PersonName(String value) {
this.value = value;
}
}
But in ML languages like F#, it is trivial to create simple wrapper types:
type PersonName = PersonName of string
Some good articles on the topic:
- https://refactoring.guru/smells/primitive-obsession
- https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/365017/when-is-primitive-obsession-not-a-code-smell
- http://codemonkeyism.com/never-never-never-use-string-in-java-or-at-least-less-often/
- https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/posts/designing-with-types-single-case-dus/
answered Nov 21 at 3:28
Nghia Bui
1,443812
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
Yes, the name of that practise is Avoiding Primitive Obsession.
According to this article:
The Smell: Primitive Obsession is using primitive data types to represent domain ideas. For example, we use a String to represent a message, an Integer to represent an amount of money, or a Struct/Dictionary/Hash to represent a specific object.
The Fix: Typically, we introduce a ValueObject in place of the primitive data.
The Tools: Some languages make this easier or harder on you.
In languages like C# and Java it can be painful to create hundred of tiny types just wrapping a simple string or int. For example you will have a lot of classes like this:
class PersonName {
public String value;
public PersonName(String value) {
this.value = value;
}
}
But in ML languages like F#, it is trivial to create simple wrapper types:
type PersonName = PersonName of string
Some good articles on the topic:
- https://refactoring.guru/smells/primitive-obsession
- https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/365017/when-is-primitive-obsession-not-a-code-smell
- http://codemonkeyism.com/never-never-never-use-string-in-java-or-at-least-less-often/
- https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/posts/designing-with-types-single-case-dus/
answered Nov 21 at 3:28
Nghia Bui
1,443812
Yes, the name of that practise is Avoiding Primitive Obsession.
According to this article:
The Smell: Primitive Obsession is using primitive data types to represent domain ideas. For example, we use a String to represent a message, an Integer to represent an amount of money, or a Struct/Dictionary/Hash to represent a specific object.
The Fix: Typically, we introduce a ValueObject in place of the primitive data.
The Tools: Some languages make this easier or harder on you.
In languages like C# and Java it can be painful to create hundred of tiny types just wrapping a simple string or int. For example you will have a lot of classes like this:
class PersonName {
public String value;
public PersonName(String value) {
this.value = value;
}
}
But in ML languages like F#, it is trivial to create simple wrapper types:
type PersonName = PersonName of string
Some good articles on the topic:
- https://refactoring.guru/smells/primitive-obsession
- https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/365017/when-is-primitive-obsession-not-a-code-smell
- http://codemonkeyism.com/never-never-never-use-string-in-java-or-at-least-less-often/
- https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/posts/designing-with-types-single-case-dus/
answered Nov 21 at 3:28
Nghia Bui
1,443812
edited Nov 22 at 6:27
answered Nov 21 at 3:28
Nghia Bui
1,443812
answered Nov 21 at 3:28
Nghia Bui
1,443812
answered Nov 21 at 3:28
Nghia Bui
1,443812
1,443812
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53393431%2fis-there-a-name-for-practise-of-avoiding-using-programing-langue-types%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
It's usually called 'stringly typed'.
– Lee
Nov 20 at 13:02
Personally, I think the first example is fine. I would not call that stringly-typed programming so long as the
Personobject is being passed around and not its individual fields.– jaco0646
Nov 26 at 18:16