We chatted in the lunch queue but will post anyway.
I really enjoyed your talk and felt you covered a lot of ground.
As well as the specifics of dependency injection, you made a number of subtle points that I hadn't heard before and really appreciated, for example:
- Prefer ClassName::class to string
- Rethrow generic exceptions as specific exceptions to aid troubleshooting
- Logical to define resource factories as functions since code outside the project is procedural in nature
- More efficient to review methods from interfaces than classes
The last two points are both valid in my view, however others seemed to find them controversial.
There may have been less scepticism if you had warned us that you have a somewhat distinct style and favour a particular approach in some areas.
You also started your talk without an "about me". Establishing credibility and common ground would likely have made your audience more accepting.
A technical talk that was delivered in good detail. Some points go against established RFCs but I think it was good to see a talk that challenges these. Some of the choice were explained well but I felt lacked a little personal experience to back them up.
The pace of the talk made it a little tricky to keep my focus in places but the time in the day of the talk's slot had something to do with that too.
Best technical talk of the day as made everyone consider how they were coding and if the style of their work was right. So clear and so good debate. Would have been nice to maybe cut the talk back and lead more discussion.
This talk is a very good eye-opener for a lot of people that just joined the "Dependency Injection Club", and that are just relying on the toolset they are using, rather than reflecting on what is happening and what shouldn't happening.
Nicely delivered, even though Dan wasn't feeling all too well.
We need more of these technical opinionated talks: that's where discussion starts from.
Dan definitely knows what he's talking about and the message is very universal: you should do dependency injection, it will make your live better.
Having a different point of view than some of the others in de DI club is a-ok, but it might be best to warn people upfront and direct questions that lead to discussions at the end to after the talk. This avoids needless discussions and leaves opportunity for people with genuine questions.
Good talk & it came across as though you really understood your subject. Went a little over my head in parts but that's more a lack of understanding on my part as there's only so much explanation you'd be able to do in the limited time.
Good technical talk; covered a lot of points and provided valuable insight. However, I felt that delivery was a bit lacking in enthusiasm. Possibly to do with time of day etc.
Generally good talk, however many points were asserted as the only way to view things. Being opinionated is fine, but without room given for alternate views it potentially lands flat for the audience. Learning to handle the Q&A better would improve things - allowing one person to have a question and 2 follow ups, locks out others with points to make.
The talk was very informative and introduced useful tools. Covered the reasons for good dependency injection and provided useful information on how to do it.
Comments
Comments are closed.
Very interesting and in depth talk delivered well.
We chatted in the lunch queue but will post anyway.
I really enjoyed your talk and felt you covered a lot of ground.
As well as the specifics of dependency injection, you made a number of subtle points that I hadn't heard before and really appreciated, for example:
- Prefer ClassName::class to string
- Rethrow generic exceptions as specific exceptions to aid troubleshooting
- Logical to define resource factories as functions since code outside the project is procedural in nature
- More efficient to review methods from interfaces than classes
The last two points are both valid in my view, however others seemed to find them controversial.
There may have been less scepticism if you had warned us that you have a somewhat distinct style and favour a particular approach in some areas.
You also started your talk without an "about me". Establishing credibility and common ground would likely have made your audience more accepting.
A technical talk that was delivered in good detail. Some points go against established RFCs but I think it was good to see a talk that challenges these. Some of the choice were explained well but I felt lacked a little personal experience to back them up.
The pace of the talk made it a little tricky to keep my focus in places but the time in the day of the talk's slot had something to do with that too.
Best technical talk of the day as made everyone consider how they were coding and if the style of their work was right. So clear and so good debate. Would have been nice to maybe cut the talk back and lead more discussion.
This talk is a very good eye-opener for a lot of people that just joined the "Dependency Injection Club", and that are just relying on the toolset they are using, rather than reflecting on what is happening and what shouldn't happening.
Nicely delivered, even though Dan wasn't feeling all too well.
We need more of these technical opinionated talks: that's where discussion starts from.
Dan definitely knows what he's talking about and the message is very universal: you should do dependency injection, it will make your live better.
Having a different point of view than some of the others in de DI club is a-ok, but it might be best to warn people upfront and direct questions that lead to discussions at the end to after the talk. This avoids needless discussions and leaves opportunity for people with genuine questions.
Good talk & it came across as though you really understood your subject. Went a little over my head in parts but that's more a lack of understanding on my part as there's only so much explanation you'd be able to do in the limited time.
Good technical talk; covered a lot of points and provided valuable insight. However, I felt that delivery was a bit lacking in enthusiasm. Possibly to do with time of day etc.
Generally good talk, however many points were asserted as the only way to view things. Being opinionated is fine, but without room given for alternate views it potentially lands flat for the audience. Learning to handle the Q&A better would improve things - allowing one person to have a question and 2 follow ups, locks out others with points to make.
The talk was very informative and introduced useful tools. Covered the reasons for good dependency injection and provided useful information on how to do it.