From a SuiteScript Dev job spec. Does anyone actually write OOP SS using SOLID principles?

with 2.1, yes, as much as I can

@ehcanadian A lot of SS I've seen doesn't really map well to OOP. It's hard to create classes/objects that actually make sense when you're just creating record and populating fields based on various bits of logic.

yeah, depends what I am working on. I use custom modules where I can, and in those I create classes and when I find myself duplicating logic, I subclass

NFT brings an more traditional OO feel to data access in a generalized way, among other things.

Personally I'm not a huge fan of class-oriented programming generally; I prefer to separate data from behavior completely, so my typical approach looks a lot more like Shawn's, maybe most similar to a Functional Core-Imperative Shell approach, but I'm not much of a purist in any one paradigm. I suppose I apply the

S

and the

I

from SOLID consistently, but I'm not usually thinking about SOLID.

I'm 100% OOP. SOLID is harder to achieve with multiple devs tough

I’m from a Java background so OOP and SOLID are well engrained into me; I’m not seeing any SuiteScripts that use OOP though. Most I’ve come across don’t have any of the standards markers of well engineered software / code.

Ya, I same here. I tried to play along in the functional world. But once I moved to TypeScript, I got to reignite my love for OOP

99.37% of SuiteScript I see is entirely procedural with little to no problem decomposition, and that's always disappointing.

So true @erictgrubaugh

these are some of the reasons NFT exists