| > This is such bad advice that I honestly couldn’t tell if it was a parody or not until I read the comment section—it’s not. There is a large body of content on why concepts discussed in the article are championed. And also a large body of content on how they are misused (and I agree that can be - even to a huge degree). So while, I think it is fine to judge that ascribed benefits are not worth the cost (or are not even realizable in a typical development team). Or argue why the benefits of an architecture like this doesn't work for Rust in particular - which may be the case since many of these patterns are oriented towards design in the enterprise applications space. But ascribing the approach as being a "parody" is not at all constructive. The patterns of hexagonal architecture isn't in any way coupled to OOP even if some of the terminology is highly aligned with languages in the OOP space. In fact the well regarded (at least by me) Mark Seeman has an article how Ports and Adapters, another name for Hexagonal Architecture, is inherently functional [1]. And this resonates with my experience. I have seen the pattern implemented well across: Python, Typescript, Javascript, .Net, Scala, and Go. And while the systems languages such as: C, Rust, and beyond are quite distinct from the previously discussed languages. There is certainly space for debate on the viability of the application of these patterns. [1] https://blog.ploeh.dk/2016/03/18/functional-architecture-is-... |