Any code base that doesn't use the advanced features of it's language(s) are always better in my experience. Heavy usage of e.g. meta-programming in Python or perhaps uber's fx (dependency injection) in Go makes projects infinitely harder to get into.
I worked at GOV.UK for a few years on what was effectively specialised CMSs all written in Rails. Mostly basic CRUD stuff. A contractor came along and built the most insane CMS I've ever seen. I found out later it was flavor of the Java Repository Pattern using dependency injection. It became so difficult to work with that the last thing I worked on there was to delete it and rebuild it using standard Rails patterns.
The KISS philosophy exists for a reason and that includes over-using advanced language features just to show off.
Besides just KISS, a lot of messes I've seen have been implementing patterns outside the framework or implementing complex patterns that didn't add value.
Besides KISS (or maybe as an extensive), try to keep framework-based codebases as close to the official documented setup as possible. You automatically get to s of free, high-quality documentation available on the Internet.
I've had a consistent experience in Rails where I think for a day or two I've got a legitimate use case for one the whacky things you can do... and then as I work the problem more, it turns out: nope, the simple stuff is still the Right Way.
Someday, Ruby shenanigans, someday...
PS - Being able to pull the shenanigans is super useful during the dev process, usually to skip some yak shaving during exploration, so it's nice to have anyway.
I disagree with this, but I understand where it's coming from. I think you have a form of whiplash from things like:
- Novices overusing the new shiny.
- Java/C++/etc Jr programmers overusing design patterns.
- Perl programmers solving everything with regexes.
- Small startups with GraphQL, or any other large enterprise tool.
- Metaprogramming, Maco's, Dependency injection, Recursion, etc when a simpler solution is a better fit.
IMHO, a "best codebase" will be just a bit more advanced than I am, with good resources for me to grok it. I want to be able to learn from it. I also don't want to be so far out of my depth that I can't make a reasonable contribution.
It would be cool if newer (imperative) languages had a clear protocol to delimit the simple core of the language from the advanced, library-building features. Like Rust has `unsafe` blocks, imagine a `advanced` or `metaprogramming` block that is required in order to use advanced metaprogramming features. Then you could tell a junior to implement $MUNDANE_INTEGRATION without use of `advanced`, and that constraint could be statically verified in PRs, etc.
It seems like it would vastly simplify language evolution. The core language can have rigid limits on changes and follow the Zen of Python or whatever, while the `advanced` language extensions can be a bit looser. Features could graduate from advanced to core without breaking anything. You get a single powerful+expressive language with a "porcelain interface" without necessarily giving juniors ammo to shoot themselves in the foot.
You have GC by default that's Python like and intuitive programming constructs. Since for the most part D compilation is much faster than C++ and Rust compilation as long as you stick to the core non-CTFE. Heck you can use D as a compiled scripting language with REPL using rdmd [1].
Then if you want to go gung-ho, you can use the other advance features like D's excellent template meta programming, CTFE, bit banging in-line assembly, etc. D has so many advanced features that can be explored later on, even modern C++ is playing catch up with D in every releases. Nowadays D compiler also support C natively [2] and GDC compiler is included inside the venerable GCC eco-system.
There are university that teach software development and engineering class with D due to its managed, on-demand and gradual complexity, not like "in your face" complexity of the big kahuna programming language like C++ and Rust [3]. Like other compiled languages you can build real-time system even firmware device drivers in D unlike Python.
I think one should not use advanced language features just because, but I also think one should not avoid using advanced language features where it is useful.
Why would the code base be worse when advanced language features are used?
Really simple languages: Ruling out meta-programming is really going to limit you in Lua for example. Just being able to do `mySocket:close()` instead of `Socket.close(mySocket)` involves meta-programming.
Older languages: For C++ the "simple" features are going to include raw pointers and macros. Maybe it's not so bad to allow smart pointers and templates to avoid those
Both of these examples are examples of an under-programmed core though. Lua is notorious for lacking batteries, so everyone has to reinvent their own. There’s literally no serious Lua program without some sort of classes, but they still resist adding them into lauxlib.
I worked with someone who insisted on using fx for DI in go. It's so antithetical to the entire Go philosophy, I don't even think it's an "advanced feature". It's just bringing Java cruft to a language where it isn't necessary and making everything worse.
