loading...

Discussion on: A Pythonic Guide to SOLID Design Principles

Collapse
paddy3118 profile image
Paddy3118

On single responsibility:
If one class/function/method does X on L or X on M or X on N then it seems the single responsibility could be "do X" rather than splitting it to 3 separate places of L. M. and N handling.
If a lead uses the principle to insist others change code then it could cause friction if it is not convincingly argued why a view on responsibility is to be preferred.

Collapse
ezzy1337 profile image
Derek D. Author

You've hit the nail on the head. I tried to enforce SOLID design in a code base where I was not a team lead. It caused a lot of friction because I didn't explain the principle or benefits well. I hope this article helps with insufficient explanations, but I don't think friction is inherently bad. As a team lead you should be pushing your developers to be even better, but sometimes that means letting them make a mistake and learn from it. The really good team leads will be able to find that balance.

I'm curious about the X on L or X or M, or X on N explanations you offered though. I don't quite follow what you are getting at, but if you have a more concrete example I'd love to discuss it further.

Collapse
chordmemory profile image
Jordan Cahill

I believe that what Paddy3118 meant with the X on L or X or M, or X on N explanations is that sometimes developers may have different opinions on what a single responsibility constitutes. In the end ...

There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.

I typically find that after discussing the various possibilities with my team and figuring out the pros and cons of different implementations, the obvious best way will arise.

Thread Thread
paddy3118 profile image
Paddy3118

Ay, someone else may have thought through wider implications, or not 🤔