2 deleted 1 character in body
source | link

I would use the scope as a rule of thumb: The narrower the scope of generating and consuming such values areis, the less likely you have to create an object representing this value.

Say you have the following pseudocode

id = generateProcessId();
doFancyOtherstuff();
job.do(id);

then the scope is very limited and I would see no sense in making it a type. But say, you generate this value in one layer and pass it to another layer (or even another object), then it would make perfect sense to create a type for that.

I would use the scope as a rule of thumb: The narrower the scope of generating and consuming such values are, the less likely you have to create an object representing this value.

Say you have the following pseudocode

id = generateProcessId();
doFancyOtherstuff();
job.do(id);

then the scope is very limited and I would see no sense in making it a type. But say, you generate this value in one layer and pass it to another layer (or even another object), then it would make perfect sense to create a type for that.

I would use the scope as a rule of thumb: The narrower the scope of generating and consuming such values is, the less likely you have to create an object representing this value.

Say you have the following pseudocode

id = generateProcessId();
doFancyOtherstuff();
job.do(id);

then the scope is very limited and I would see no sense in making it a type. But say, you generate this value in one layer and pass it to another layer (or even another object), then it would make perfect sense to create a type for that.

1
source | link

I would use the scope as a rule of thumb: The narrower the scope of generating and consuming such values are, the less likely you have to create an object representing this value.

Say you have the following pseudocode

id = generateProcessId();
doFancyOtherstuff();
job.do(id);

then the scope is very limited and I would see no sense in making it a type. But say, you generate this value in one layer and pass it to another layer (or even another object), then it would make perfect sense to create a type for that.