[tptacek]

I stopped taking this post seriously when I got to "objects > functions" (at least in Ruby). I think it may be an elaborate gag.

All I can say is, if I worked in a Rails shop and checked some code in that used a helper to generate the A-Z index of a collection of models, and my boss told me, "no, you need to move that code to app/presenters/as_dictionary.rb, because that's where I've been putting my code that presents our data as_numbered_lists and as_abbreviated_snippets and as_random_selectons; it's called the Presenter pattern and we use it", I'd look for new projects.

Also, "structured programming" isn't "Programming 1.0" to "object oriented programming"'s "Programming 2.0". That is not how it works, Steve.

[exogen]

And if you'd rather cowboy up some code than stick with the abstractions your team is already using, I'd be glad you left the project.

I'm not defending these exact examples or anything, but come on. Any kid out of school can toss some code into a project that just works. It takes some discipline to write reusable code that people know where to look for later.

[bphogan]

It takes more discipline to decide not to do something.

In the case of Rails, it's a framework and the patterns of that framework are established. I know to look for models in the models directory, controllers in the controllers directory, and helpers in the helpers directory. When I come into someone else's project, it's nice to know where things are. I've inherited lots of code from consultants who know "best practices" and move from one project to the next. Some of these projects barely resemble Rails anymore.

It's led me to ask the question "If Rails isn't good enough, then why are you using it?"

[urbanautomaton]

You should try to avoid subverting a framework's conventions if you're going to use it, sure, but Rails' helpers seem more like an absence of convention. They're a dumping ground for methods that are crying out to be properly structured. Surely not even the most fervent Rails advocate would claim that it is complete and unimprovable.

Every single helper module is mixed in to every single view instance, no matter how irrelevant it may be. There's therefore no reason to carefully choose where to put your helper functions, because they're all available, all the time. This means that a new coder coming along has no idea where to look for helper functions that might be relevant to a particular view he's creating - they could be in literally any helper, or even be helper-ified controller methods. This in turn means you end up with duplicated functionality, orphaned functions, and obsolete cruft stinking up the joint.

As a result, any even slightly professional team must develop their own conventions regarding the placement of helper functions. These conventions need to be communicated somehow, and how better to do that than through the code itself? Once you've got a pile of helper functions that are bound by a common cause, why not give that cause a name?

[jasonlotito]

> It's led me to ask the question "If Rails isn't good enough, then why are you using it?"

That's a pretty poor question. Rails is a framework, and for the most part it works. However, that doesn't mean it's the one and true way of doing things.

Granted, I generally agree with the article. Helpers are a step backwards.

[tptacek]

Why?

The sole purpose of a helper is to keep code out of templates and presentation out of controllers.

How could they do a better job of that than they do now?

Remember, the article you're agreeing with says that helpers are bad because they are "just functions". This is, in a word, crazy. It's one thing to design with objects; it's another thing to turn all your functions into classes so you can pretend you're OO.

[fjfish]

So put the code in the model, where it belongs ... I rarely use helpers for anything but formatting-fu - everything else is in the model. I rarely use helpers, period.