Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

3
  • 3
    It might be worth mentioning that some of the question's pain is likely just growing pain as well - while, yes, they might need to make 15 files for this one thing... now they never have to write a GUIDProvider again, or a BasePathProvider, or an ExtensionProvider, etc. It's the same sort of hurdle you get when you start a new greenfield project - bunches of supporting features that are mostly trivial, stupid to write, and yet still need to be written. Sucks to build them, but once they're there you shouldn't need to think about them.... ever. Commented Jul 10, 2019 at 16:17
  • @Delioth I'm incredibly inclined to believe this is the case. Previously, if we needed some subset of functionality (lets say we simply wanted a URL housed in AppSettings), we simply had one massive class that was passed around and used. With the new approach, there's no reason to pass around the entirety of AppSettings just to get a url or file path. Commented Jul 10, 2019 at 18:44
  • 1
    Do not start a rewrite fest. The old code represents hard won knowledge. Tossing it out because it has problems and isn't expressed in new and improved paradigm X is just asking for a new set of problems and no hard won knowledge. This. Absolutely. Commented Jul 11, 2019 at 19:50