> Irrelevant, as a) that's just your own personal and very subjective opinion
Yes? And it's just your personal, subjective opinion that this is irrelevant. Most meaningful judgments are subjective. Get used to it.
> DDD is extensively documented as the one true way to write "good code"
Who said this? I've seen it described as a good way to write code, and as a way of avoiding problems that can crop up in other styles. But never as the only way to write good code.
> "Underlying ideas" means cherry-picking opinions that suit your fancy while ignoring those that don't.
No it doesn't. What? The only way I can make sense of what you're saying is if you're cynical toward the very concept of analyzing ideas, which is perhaps the most anti-intellectual stance I can imagine.
> The criticism on anemic domain models [...] is more than enough to reject any claim on how functional programming is compatible with DDD.
Why would an author's criticism of a certain style of OOP make a methodology they have written about incompatible with non-OOP paradigms? That's like saying that it's impossible to make strawberry ice cream because the person who invented ice cream hates strawberries.
> But the point that this proves is that there is no one true way of producing "good code".
There's no "one true way" to build a "good bridge," but that doesn't mean bridge design is all a matter of taste. Suspension bridges can carry a lot more than beam bridges; if you want to drive 18-wheelers across a wide river, a beam bridge will collapse, while a suspension bridge will probably be "good."
Yes? And it's just your personal, subjective opinion that this is irrelevant. Most meaningful judgments are subjective. Get used to it.
> DDD is extensively documented as the one true way to write "good code"
Who said this? I've seen it described as a good way to write code, and as a way of avoiding problems that can crop up in other styles. But never as the only way to write good code.
> "Underlying ideas" means cherry-picking opinions that suit your fancy while ignoring those that don't.
No it doesn't. What? The only way I can make sense of what you're saying is if you're cynical toward the very concept of analyzing ideas, which is perhaps the most anti-intellectual stance I can imagine.
> The criticism on anemic domain models [...] is more than enough to reject any claim on how functional programming is compatible with DDD.
Why would an author's criticism of a certain style of OOP make a methodology they have written about incompatible with non-OOP paradigms? That's like saying that it's impossible to make strawberry ice cream because the person who invented ice cream hates strawberries.
> But the point that this proves is that there is no one true way of producing "good code".
There's no "one true way" to build a "good bridge," but that doesn't mean bridge design is all a matter of taste. Suspension bridges can carry a lot more than beam bridges; if you want to drive 18-wheelers across a wide river, a beam bridge will collapse, while a suspension bridge will probably be "good."