this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2026
686 points (97.4% liked)

Programmer Humor

28973 readers
1519 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] frog_brawler@lemmy.world 1 points 15 minutes ago* (last edited 13 minutes ago)

Jr. Devs: My ideas aren't proven or concrete so I'm going to make memes of sr. devs

-- everyone with a brain... "ok, cool, let me know when you get on board with the sr. devs, till then, shut up and stop being dumb."

[–] sunbeam60@feddit.uk 1 points 22 minutes ago

Where we vibe code, we don’t need abstractions!

Just an inglorious soup of notches and work arounds.

It’s the ultimate shitty transpiler —> from shitty requirements to crappy architecture by fibbergibberting!

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 27 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (2 children)

I started working as a professional programmer in the mid-90s when three-tiered design was all the rage: a data access layer, a business logic layer, and a presentation layer. It seems that nobody actually knew what "business logic" was even supposed to be, because I kept inheriting projects where all the middle tier did was hand data objects from the data layer to the UI. In theory this prevented the UI from being fundamentally bound to the data access, but all three layers were always written in Visual Basic which got kicked to the curb in a few years anyway.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 6 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Business logic would be transformations to the data. Like for a spreadsheet, the data layer would handle the reading/writing of files as well as the storage of each cell's content. The business logic layer would handle evaluating each of the formulas in the cells, and the presentation layer draws it on the screen.

I think the part where it gets confusing is that each of these layers are pretty tightly coupled. The end destination of the presentation layer might change, one might show it on a GUI, another might print it, and another might convert it to pdf or html, but each of those presentation layers needs to understand the data that it is presenting, so it's tightly coupled to the data layer. Same with the businesses logic layer, though it's tightly coupled on both the input and output sides. The design of the data layer constrains the possibilities of the other two, so it's hard to draw a clear boundary between the layers because they all need to know how to walk the same data.

My mental flow chart for this is more of a data layer in the middle instead of business logic, where business logic is to the side with arrows going both ways between it and data layer, then the presentation layer also accessing the data layer directly, which I suppose is a different permutation of what you described.

Though another way to look at it does make sense. For a website, think of the database as the data layer, the server scripts as the business logic layer, and the client side scripts/html/css as the presentation layer. That one also follows the layered approach where the presentation layer is talking with the business logic layer.

[–] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 6 points 14 hours ago

It's simpler than that, if you're working on the data layer anything you don't want to touch is business logic.

If you're working on business logic the bad stuff is data layer.

Presentation layer just isn't my problem.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 4 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

My first tech job was writing test harnesses for DCOMs. Your post was a weird trip down memory lane.

[–] mattyroses@lemmy.today 9 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

yeah, I remember not understanding domain driven design

[–] zen@lemmy.zip 3 points 13 hours ago

DDD is great until you need a houseboat.

[–] thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world 62 points 21 hours ago (6 children)

Junior devs not abstracting anything and now the app is unmaintainable

[–] Tamo240@programming.dev 20 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Exactly, have fun trying to get test coverage without dependency injection

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 7 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

with patch("some_file.requests.get", side_effect=SomeException("oh no")):
  result = func_using_requests()

Though not every language makes mocking as easy, and multiple responsibilities in a single function can quickly get messy.

[–] Tamo240@programming.dev 5 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

Oh I'm fully aware that python lets you cheat dependency injection with patch, its one of the many things python teaches developers to do wrong, which leads them to be unable to use any other language.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] addie@feddit.uk 17 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

Abstraction is not very compatible with concurrency, so as well as your your beautiful abstract API, you also need some 'cut through the layers' functions to return the underlying classes you need to synchronise on. Now you have a right mess that's incredibly hard to understand, infuriating to debug, and impossible to refactor. Best you can do is put another layer of abstraction on top. Repeat every six months.

[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

That's why you build the api first. If you need to "cut through" anything you build an api for that instead.

[–] 3abas@lemmy.world 11 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

That's just bad interface... When you design an API as if operations were independent, but they aren’t, you run into these issues.

Don't add "cut through the lawyers" functions, fix your interface.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago

Yeah, well-designed abstraction can help enable more concurrency. That said, concurrency isn't easy at any point once there's shared data that needs to be written to during the process. Maybe it's not so bad if your language has good concurrency support (like monitor classes and such that handle most of the locking behind the scenes), but even then, there's subtle pitfalls that can add rare bugs or crashes to your program.

[–] MrMetaKopos@slrpnk.net 15 points 17 hours ago (1 children)
[–] vane@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago

Pack it to lambda and name it microservice.

[–] lessthanluigi 112 points 1 day ago (4 children)

DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS!!!!

[–] squirrel@piefed.kobel.fyi 62 points 1 day ago

COPILOTS, COPILOTS, COPILOTS, COPILOTS!!!!

There, I updated it for you and I hate it.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 24 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

you missed the best part

AAAAHHHHRRRRGGGHHHHHHHAAAAAAAA! sweat pouring off balmer as his body goes into shock from the pain

His mutant power is absorbing all of the cocaine in a 20 mi radius.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 31 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Just got out of a discussion with a supplier. We can do what we needed by connecting to the database. Instead we have to go through four layers of different tech to arrive at the same point in the database otherwise it's not compliant. That the supplier needs to sell a license for those layers is purely coincidental.

[–] expr@piefed.social 13 points 18 hours ago

Obviously don't have the full context, but rarely is it ever advisable to give third parties direct access to a database. There are many reasons for this, like, for example, the fact that doing so makes schema migrations practically impossible.

[–] Randelung@lemmy.world 14 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

I recently started a new job. We use Java. There's a class that does a few things based on explicit arguments only to decide whether to use an FTP or file output, and you supply all parameters yourself. A whole ass Rube Goldberg machine that could be replaced by a single line of Files.writeString.

Also, there's a great video on YT "Stop writing classes" that is incredibly relevant.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 5 points 14 hours ago

Yeah, Java's enforcement of everything must be a class put me off of the language right from the start. I was already used to C++ at that point and hated that I couldn't just write a quick little test function to check something, it needed a bunch of boilerplate to even get started.

I still think C++ has a great balance between object oriented and sequential programming. Not sure if it's the best, but I can't think of ways to improve on it, other than built in concurrency object stuff (like monitor classes that have built in locks that prevent more than one thread from accessing any of its functions at the same time, basically guaranteeing any code in it has mutual exclusion).

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 7 points 17 hours ago

This hits.

I stepped into a similar implementation. Took like 6 months and 10 people to support...

... changing the URL of the sftp server we connected to.

[–] red_tomato@lemmy.world 73 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why should I want simplicity? I want to make unnecessarily complex programs to gatekeep those pesky junior programmers.

[–] db2@lemmy.world 10 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

They look so painfully awkward, like a parent should be telling them to knock it off or something.

[–] Bosht@lemmy.world 8 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

If you haven't seen the vid it's 500 levels of awkward cringe that's hard to watch. Had to do with one of the MS version releases. They're acting so awkward you can't tell if they're yakked out in coke or just that socially awkward. Full disclosure I'd be worse than them in that situation, just calling it like it is.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago

Sometimes tech presentations make me feel really bad for the person giving it. They are up there trying their best but clearly don't have the skills to do more than just communicate information but still try to make their presentation cool and fun and it just falls flat.

Anyone can be cool, but not everyone can be cool on demand or on stage.

Though on the other hand, just because a presenter can pull off the cool factor, it doesn't mean what they are presenting is actually cool. The coolness of a presentation has no correlation with the coolness of what is being presented, unless that coolness is just information about the product (though even then, they are probably skipping over the flaws and enshitification).

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 5 points 16 hours ago

100% Ballmer is yakked out on coke.

[–] lemmy_get_my_coat@lemmy.world 11 points 18 hours ago

At least one of them is a pedophile, so you're probably not wrong

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 31 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Abstraction layers is simplicity given a complex enough bottom.

[–] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 26 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

A complex bottom may have difficulty mating with a simple top

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RedFrank24@piefed.social 15 points 21 hours ago (6 children)

Always favor composition over inheritance if you can.

[–] logi@lemmy.world 6 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

All absolute statements are false.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] vatlark@lemmy.world 18 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (2 children)
[–] HellieSkellie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

they really made their domain pee rate dot france huh

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›