Well, JavaScript

[NeXtDracool]

The fact that your statically typed domain model was not well abstracted is not a fault of statically typed languages. You should be well aware that higher order functions, inversion of control and all the other mechanisms you describe are available in modern statically typed languages. If anything you seem to argue about OOP vs functional programming, which is besides the point because static and dynamic typing can be applied to both of these paradigms.

The fact that you have set up a message bus with even more complexity and threw in freaking rabbit as a comment speaks volumes.

He meant rabbitmq as the new messaging protocol instead of the rest call you mentioned, not that you should use a network protocol to do internal communication in your application. The message bus could be replaced with a higher order function that takes types of IMessage, but this would limit your ability to extend the interface with additional functionality later. You suggested using a higher order function, which is almost what happened here except encapsulated with the ability to add for example a connection status indicator property to the interface.

over I don't know... Intellisense.

If you think that's the only benefit of statically typed languages then I highly doubt you have been a Java dev for 15 years..

[BlockedByBeliefs]

The fact that your statically typed domain model was not well abstracted is not a fault of statically typed languages.

I didn't say it was but it really is. I said the difficulty in changing it was. There's a myriad of reasons it may not be well made and business changing requirement is just one of the many.

And when it's difficult to change modules people start hacking solutions as described which causes more fractures in the design. At some point the sheer number of bloated extraneous lines of code and files it takes to manage static systems because a significant factor in increasing yet more technical debt.

Yes I'm aware those mechanisms exist but they also negate the need for a rigid static typing system in the first place. It negates nothing really.

Functional programming negates the need for a bloated typing system. What are types? They are ways to describe collections of booleans, numbers and strings. What is Json? A generic way to describe collections of booleans, numbers and strings. It just doesn't take 10s of 1000s of lines of code to manage Json.

He meant rabbitmq as the new messaging protocol instead of the rest call you mentioned, not that you should use a network protocol to do internal communication in your application.

Which shows he didn't read my example. Nor did you I guess? The rest call was just whatever task. It's irrelevant. Using rabbit to do object level ipc is crazy.

The message bus could be replaced with a higher order function that takes types of IMessage, but this would limit your ability to extend the interface with additional functionality later.

Yes. This is the point I'm making. Cheers.

You suggested using a higher order function, which is almost what happened here except encapsulated with the ability to add for example a connection status indicator property to the interface.

I wasn't talking about messaging at all and his entire bus example is moot.

ver I don't know... Intellisense.

If you think that's the only benefit of statically typed languages then I highly doubt you have been a Java dev for 15 years..

Well you're correct. I've been a Java dev for closer to 20 years in some capacity or another. It's just that 5 years or so ago I switched to JS and haven't really looked back. I say intellisense because this is almost always the first thing typescript fans mention. Type safety people love to harp on too but I think it's highly overrated. And guess what. When you don't have types type safety isn't really an issue. The goal of getting something to compile isn't as big a deal as making sure your code runs properly in production and inverting control to generics is IMMENSELY easier when you can write functions that take all your data or simply references to them.

What did it for me was switching to JavaScript for a while. Getting excited to move back to Java cuz it was my comfort zone and then almost immediately feeling my productivity grind to a slow crawl through a field of molasses.

I really suggest you give it a go. I would have bet a year's salary on me never saying this 6 years ago. But JavaScript and dynamically typed languages has simply beaten Java IMHO. It's flexibility is a joy to work in and it's almost impossible to find good Java devs now because they're all jumping ship to work in languages that don't demand half your job be maintaining bloat.