Related
Hey i have question with a real word example.
Its related to my two other, but not really answered questions here:
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/423392/no-trivial-god-class-refactoring
and
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/425113/different-composition-techniques-from-the-perspective-of-the-client
Let's say we have a switch with the methods switchOn(), switchOff().
The switch(es) are included in some other structure, for example a switch-bag, from where i can pull out the switches.
This can be seen as a ready system.
Now i want to introduce the possibility of switching these switches on after a certain time automatically: A time switch
The time switch ueses now the "normal" switch.
The normal switch doesn't have to know something about the time switch.
So but now the client can pull out the normal switch from the switch-bag and now he want also to get to the time-switch related to these normal switch, maybe to configure a new time.
And this is my question, how can the client get to the time-switch?
There are a few possibilites:
I refactor the normal switch class to a third-class where the
normal-switch and the time switch lives bundled in it. But for this,
i break some other client code which still uses the normal switch, but
get now from the switch bag a "Combinator"-Class/Object out of it.
I don't change anything of the normal switch class. The client if he
wants to get access to the time switch have to ask a Map which time switch is related to it. (I think this approach is classical a
relation-programming style like a sql relationship database and its
not anymore real object-oriented style)
I extend the normal switch: Here i also have different options:
I change it to a big facade, which delegates the calls to the
normal-switch and time switch (its similar to my first solution with
the combinator, but here with an facade don't breaking some existing
client code)
i extend the normal switch letting the existing normal switch code
untouched and introduce a component holder. Into this component
holder i inject the time switch. So i have these methods there:
switchOn(); switchOff(); getComponent("timeSwitch"). But these
approach feels like a entity-component system
(https://medium.com/ingeniouslysimple/entities-components-and-systems-89c31464240d)
but is that still object oriented programming?
i think the last solution is the best one, because its the most flexible.
But what do you think which approach is the best, maybe some approach i didnt mentionend here?
Edit:
One more thing you must to know here: The time switch is one extension of the normal switch. One of many. So i want to add of course different more things XYZ switches/behavior extensions to the normal switch
Update: answer totally re-written (so the first comment won't make sense any more).
To summarize:
SwitchBag provides access to a list/collection of switches.
Switches have methods like on() and off().
You want to extend the behavior of at least some switches can do stuff themselves based on the passing of time, etc.
Clients (e.g. the UI) need access to the switches classes.
You make comments like
and now he want also to get to the time-switch related to these normal
switch
which suggests you have one of each, etc - which is way more complex than it needs to be. Here's some options to consider - some of your ones were heading in the right direction.
Option A: One type of switch
This assumes that the solutions design & functional drivers don't push you to create huge and overly complex switches. For example, let's say some of your switches need to do something after a period of time, others don't. Such a difference is not necessarily reason enough to make a separate class.
E.g. you can implement a time related property like Duration, if Duration > 0 then time logic applies and gets executed; < 0 means no time logic is applied (normal switch behavior).
I'm assuming here that any client can get access to any switch via the SwitchBag.
This is the option I would start with because it's simple and still allows plenty of functional scope.
Option B: Smart SwitchBag, Dumb Swithes
I'm not sure if I like the smell of this option because it tightly-couples the SwitchBag and Switch classes, but it could be useful.
Keep the switch class as dumb as possible.
SwitchBag knows about switches, it controls access to them (and their properties/methods). Use class structure and access modifiers to control this.
SwitchBag can decide to do stuff to switches based on time if it wants to.
In this approach, switches will be mostly properties, and be a little bit like the SwitchBags personal database, only it's fluid based on objects at runtime.
Note - you can still have events on the switches.
Option C: Interfaces
Create a basic switch. Create interfaces that are designed to be applied to switch class(es), that extend them as necessary. E.g.:
interface ITimeBehaviour{
double InitialDuration
double TimeUntilChange
}
At runtime you can see if a given switch instance implements the interface and respond accordingly. But whilst you can do this I'm not sure why you would, based on what I understand of your problem.
Other Thoughts
Your comments suggest you've thought a lot about OO concepts like inheritance and methods, but I saw no evidence you've considered asynchronous programming techniques - such as using events. If you know nothing about this then do some research and get up to speed, then see if that offers an elegant solution to your problem.
Design Patterns - are you familiar with the idea of design patterns? If you aren't, be sure to research that too. There's heaps of good content online, which describe patterns that might already solve the fundamentals of your problem.
I am recently learning Angular 6 with #ngrx/store while one of the tutorial is to use #ngrx/store for state management, however I don't understand the benefit of using #ngrx/store behind the scene.
For example, for a simple login and signup action, previously by using the service(Let's call it AuthService) we might use it to call the backend api, store "userInfo" or "token" in the AuthService, redirect user to "HOME" page and we can inject AuthService in any component where we need to get the userInfo by using DI, which simply that one file AuthService handles everything.
Now if we are using #ngrx/store, we need to define the Action/State/Reducer/Effects/Selector which probably need to write in 4 or 5 files to handle above action or event, then sometimes still we need to call backend api using service, which seems much much more complicated and redundant...
In some other scenario, I even see some page uses #ngrx/store to store the object or list of object like grid data., is that for some kind of in-memory store usage?
So back to the question, why are we using #ngrx/store over service registration store here in Angular project? I know it's for "STATE MANAGEMENT" usage, but what exactly is the "STATE MANAGEMENT"? Is that something like transaction log and When do we need it? Why would we manage it on the front end? Please feel free to share your suggestion or experience in the #ngrx/store area!
I think you should read those two posts about Ngrx store:
Angular Service Layers: Redux, RxJs and Ngrx Store - When to Use a Store And Why?
Ngrx Store - An Architecture Guide
If the first one explains the main issues solved by Ngrx Store, it also quote this statement from the React How-To "that seems to apply equally to original Flux, Redux, Ngrx Store or any store solution in general":
You’ll know when you need Flux. If you aren’t sure if you need it, you don’t need it.
To me Ngrx store solves multiple issues. For example when you have to deal with observables and when responsability for some observable data is shared between different components. In this case store actions and reducer ensure that data modifications will always be performed "the right way".
It also provides a reliable solution for http requests caching. You will be able to store the requests and their responses, so that you could verify that the request you're making has not a stored response yet.
The second post is about what made such solutions appear in the React world with Facebook's unread message counter issue.
Concerning your solution of storing non-obvervable data in services. It works fine when you're dealing with constant data. But when several components will have to update this data you will probably encounter change detection issues and improper update issues, that you could solve with:
observer pattern with private Subject public Observable and next function
Ngrx Store
I'm almost only reading about the benefits of Ngrx and other Redux like store libraries, while the (in my opinion) costly tradeoffs seem to be brushed off with far too much ease. This is often the only reason that I see given: "The only reason not to use Ngrx is if your app is small and simple". This (I would say) is simply incomplete reasoning and not good enough.
Here are my complaints about Ngrx:
You have logic split out into several different files, which makes the code hard to read and understand. This goes against basic code cohesion and locality principles. Having to jump around to different places to read how an operation is performed is mentally taxing and can lead to cognitive overload and exhaustion.
With Ngrx you have to write a lot more code, which increases the chances of bugs. More code -> more places for bugs to appear.
An Ngrx store can become a dumping ground for all things, with no rhyme or reason. It can become a global hodge podge of stuff that no one can get a coherent overview of. It can grow and grow until no one understands it any more.
I've seen a lot of unnecessary deep object cloning in Ngrx apps, which has caused real performance issues. A particular app I was assigned to work on was taking 40 ms to persist data in the store because of deep cloning of a huge store object. This is over two lost render frames if you are trying to hit a smooth 60 fps. Every interaction felt janky because of it.
Most things that Ngrx does can be done much simpler using a basic service/facade pattern that expose observables from rxjs subjects.
Just put methods on services/facades that return observables - such a method replaces the reducer, store, and selector from Ngrx. And then put other methods on the service/facade to trigger data to be pushed on these observables - these methods replace your actions and effects from Ngrx. So instead of reducers+stores+selectors you have methods that return observables. Instead of actions+effects you have methods that produce data the the observables. Where the data comes from is up to you, you can fetch something or compute something, and then just call subject.next() with the data you want to push.
The rxjs knowledge you need in order to use ngrx will already cause you to be competent in using bare rxjs yourself anyways.
If you have several components that depend on some common data, then you still don't need ngrx, as the basic service/facade pattern explicitly handles this already.
If several services depend on common data between them, then you just make a common service between these services. You still don't need ngrx. It's services all the way down, just like it is components all the way down.
For me Ngrx doesn't look so good on the bottom line.
It is essentially a bloated and over engineered Enterprise™🏢👨💼🤮 grade Rxjs Subject, when you could have just used the good old and trusty Rxjs Subject. Listen to me kids, life is too short for unnecessary complexity. Stick to the bare necessities. The simple bare necessities. Forget about your worries and your strife.
I've been working with NgRx for over three years now. I used it on small projects, where it was handy but unnecessary and I used it in applications where it was perfect fit. And meanwhile I had a chance to work on the project which did not use it and I must say it would profit from it.
On the current project I was responsible for designing the architecture of new FE app. I was tasked to completely refactor the existing application which for the same requirements used non NgRx way and it was buggy, difficult to understand and maintain and there was no documentation. I decided to use NgRx there and I did it because of following reasons:
The application has more than one actor over the data. Server uses
the SSE to push state updates which are independent from user
actions.
At the application start we load most of available data which are
then partially updated with SSE.
Various UI elements are enabled/disabled depending on multiple
conditions which come from BE and from user decisions.
UI has multiple variations. Events from BE can change currently
visible UI elements (texts in dialogs) and even user actions might
change how UI looks and works (recurring dialog can be replaced by
snack if user clicked some button).
State of multiple UI elements must be preserved so when user leaves
the page and goes back the same content (or updated via SSE) is
visible.
As you can see the requirements does not meet the standard CRUD operations web page. Doing it the "Angular" way brought such complexity to the code that it became super hard to maintain and what's worst by the time I joined the team the last two original members were leaving without any documentation of that custom made, non NgRx solution.
Now after the year since refactoring the app to use NgRx I think I can sum up the pros and cons.
Pros:
The app is more organized. State representation is easy to read,
grouped by purpose or data origin and is simple to extend.
We got rid of many factories, facades and abstract classes which lost
their purpose. The code is lighter, and components are 'dumber', with
less hidden tricks coming from somewhere else.
Complicated state calculations are made simple using effects and
selectors and most components can be now fully functional just by
injecting the store and dispatching the actions or selecting the
needed slice of the state while handling multiple actions at once.
Because of updated app requirements we were forced to refactor the
store already and it was mostly Ctrl + C, Ctrl + V and some renaming.
Thanks to Redux Dev Tools it is easier to debug and optimize (yep
really)
This is most important - even thought our state itself is unique the
store management we are using is not. It has support, it has
documentation and it's not impossible to find solutions to some
difficult problems on the internet.
Small perk, NgRx is another technology you can put to your CV :)
Cons:
My colleagues were new to the NgRx and it took some time for them to
adapt and fully understand it.
On some occasions we introduced the issue where some actions were
dispatched multiple times and it was difficult to find the cause of
it and fix it
Our Effects are huge, that's true. They can get messy but that's what
we have pull requests for. And if this code wasn't there it would
still end up somewhere else :)
Biggest issue? Actions are differentiated by their string type. Copy
an action, forget to rename it and boom, something different is
happening than you expect, and you have no clue why.
As a conclusion I would say that in our case the NgRx was a great choice. It is demanding at first but later everything feels natural and logical. Also, when you check the requirements, you'll notice that this is a special case. I understand the voices against NgRx and in some cases I would support them but not on this project. Could we have done it using 'Angular' way? Of course, it was done this way before, but it was a mess. It was still full of boiler plate code, things happening in different places without obvious reasons and more.
Anyone who would have the chance to compare those two versions would say the NgRx version is better.
There is also a 3rd option, having data in service and using service directly in html, for instance *ngFor="let item of userService.users". So when you update userService.users in service after add or update action is automatically rendered in html, no need for any observables or events or store.
If the data in your app is used in multiple components, then some kind of service to share the data is required. There are many ways to do this.
A moderately complex app will eventually look like a front end back end structure, with the data handling done in services, exposing the data via observables to the components.
At one point you will need to write some kind of api to your data services, how to get data in and out, queries, etc. Lots of rules like immutability of the data, and well defined single paths to modify the data. Not unlike the server backend, but much quicker and responsive than the api calls.
Your api will end up looking like one of the many state management libraries that already exist. They exist to solve difficult problems. You may not need them if your app is simple.
NGRX sometimes has a lot of files and a lot of duplicate code. Currently working on a fix for this. To make generic type classes for certain NGRX state management situations that are very common inside an Angular project like pagers and object loading from back-ends
Greetings!
I inherited a C#.NET application I have been extending and improving for a while now. Overall it was obviously a rush-job (or whoever wrote it was seemingly less competent than myself). The app pulls some data from an embedded device & displays and manipulates it. At the core is a communications thread in the main application form which executes a 600+ lines of code method which calls functions all over the place, implementing a state machine - lots of if-state-then-do type code. Interaction with the device is done by setting the state/mode globally and letting the thread do it's thing. (This is just one example of the badness of the code - overall it is not very OO-like, it reminds of the style of embedded C code the device firmware is written in).
My problem is that this piece of code is central to the application. The software, communications protocol or device firmware are not documented at all. Obviously to carry on with my work I have to interact with this code.
What I would like some guidance on, is whether it is worth scrapping this code & trying to piece together something more reasonable from the information I can reverse engineer? I can't decide! The reason I don't want to refactor is because the code already works, and changing it will surely be a long, laborious and unpleasant task. On the flip side, not refactoring means I have to sometimes compromise the design of other modules so that I may call my code from this state machine!
I've heard of "If it ain't broke don't fix it!", so I am wondering if it should apply when "it" is influencing the design of future code! Any advice would be appreciated!
Thanks!
Also, the longer you wait, the worse the codebase will smell. My suggestion would be first create a testsuite that you can evaluate your refactoring against. This makes it a lot easier to see if you are refactoring or just plain breaking things :).
I would definitely recommend you to refactor the code if you feel its junky. Yes, during the process of refactoring you may have some inconsistencies/problems at the start. But that is why we have iterations and testing. Since you are going to build up on this core engine in future, why not make the basement as stable as possible.
However, be very sure on what you are going to do. Because at times long lines of code does not necessarily mean evil. On the other hand they may be very efficient in running time. If/else blocks are not bad if you ask me, as they are very intelligent in branching from a microprocessor's perspective. So, you will have to be judgmental and very clear before you touch this.
But once you refactor the code, you will definitely have fine control over it. And don't forget to document it!! Tomorrow, someone might very well come and say about you on whatever you've told about this guy who have written that core code.
This depends on the constraints you are facing, it's a decision to be based on practical basis, not on theoretical ones. You need three things to consider.
Time: you need to have enough time to learn it, implement it, and test it, without too many other tasks interrupting you
Boss #1: if you are working for someone, he needs to know and approve the time and effort you will spend immediately, required to rebuild your solution
Boss #2: your boss also needs to know that the advantage of having new and clean software will come at the price of possible regressions, and therefore at the beginning of the deployment there may be unexpected bugs
If you have those three, then go ahead and refactor it. It will be surely be worth it!
First and foremost, get all the business logic out of the Form. Second, locate all the parts where the code interacts with the global state (e.g. accessing the embedded system). Delegate all this access to methods. Then, move these methods into a new class and create an instance in the class's constructor. Finally, inject an instance for the class to use.
Following these steps, you can move your embedded system logic ("existing module") to a wrapper class you write, so the interface can be nice and clean and more manageable. Then you can better tackle refactoring the monster method because there is less global state to worry about (only local state).
If the code works and you can integrate your part with minimal changes to it then let the code as it is and do your integration.
If the code is simply a big barrier in your way to add new functionality then it is best for you to refactor it.
Talk with other people that are responsible for the project, explain the situation, give an estimation explaining the benefits gained after refactoring the code and I'm sure (I hope) that the best choice will be made. It is best to speak about what you think, don't keep anything inside, especially if this affects your productivity, motivation etc.
NOTE: Usually rewriting code is out of the question but depending on situation and amount of code needed to be rewritten the decision may vary.
You say that this is having an impact on the future design of the system. In this case I would say it is broken and does need fixing.
But you do have to take into account the business requirements. Often reality gets in the way!
Would it be possible to wrap this code up in another class whose interface better suits how you want to take the system forward? (See adapter pattern)
This would allow you to move forward with your requirements without the poor design having an impact.
It gives you an interface that you understand which you could write some unit tests for. These tests can be based on what your design requires from this code. It ensures that your assumptions about what it is doing is correct. If you say that this code works, then any failing tests may be that your assumptions are incorrect.
Once you have these tests you can safely refactor - one step at a time, and when you have some spare time or when it is needed - as per business requirements.
Quite often I find the best way to truly understand a piece of code is to refactor it.
EDIT
On reflection, as this is one big method with multiple calls to the outside world, you are going to need some kind of inverse Adapter class to wrap this method. If you can inject dependencies into the method (see Dependency Inversion such that the method calls methods in your classes then you can route these to the original calls.
I am planning a turn based game (a sort of board game), and the backend will probably be done in Erlang. The game logic part seems to be a fit for a hierarchical state machine, but I'm not sure about how to implement that in Erlang.
Maybe I can spawn a separate process with each child fsm, not sure if this would work.
Another option would be to embed a scripting language or create a DSL for this purpose.
What do you think?
Thanks.
I am the original question author (in fact I would like to claim the question as mine, but I don't know how).
I already know about all the things OTP offers, gen_fsm included.
The idea is to use a HIERARCHICAL state machine, and gen_fsm is a plain state machine. To keep track of the game turns, phases, etc, I don't think a plain state machine as gen_fsm would be enough.
Anyway, I have been investigating further, and I think that I will use erl-lua so I can use Lua for all the game logic. Once it is working I can search for bottlenecks and move them to a C implementation or whatever.
#codecaster you can use gen_fsm to track the state and just build in an additional level of state inside the fsm state... however, erl-lua would work as well. I built a monitoring tool with it called erlmon - we had some trouble with erl-lua crashing so keep in mind it's not bug free. also with the new support for Nifs, i'm waiting for someone to write a new driver for lua that is nif-based - you might want to look around for that - i haven't seen anyone build one yet.
As a starting point, I would suggest you to have a look to the OTP design principles. You'll probably want to have a more detailed look at supervisors and generic FSMs.
Everyone I work with is obsessed with the data-centric approach to enterprise development and hates the idea of using custom collections/objects. What is the best way to convince them otherwise?
Do it by example and tread lightly. Anything stronger will just alienate you from the rest of the team.
Remember to consider the possibility that they're onto something you've missed. Being part of a team means taking turns learning & teaching.
No single person has all the answers.
If you are working on legacy code (e.g., apps ported from .NET 1.x to 2.0 or 3.5) then it would be a bad idea to depart from datasets. Why change something that already works?
If you are, however, creating a new apps, there a few things that you can cite:
Appeal to experiencing pain in maintaining apps that stick with DataSets
Cite performance benefits for your new approach
Bait them with a good middle-ground. Move to .NET 3.5, and promote LINQ to SQL, for instance: while still sticking to data-driven architecture, is a huge, huge departure to string-indexed data sets, and enforces... voila! Custom collections -- in a manner that is hidden from them.
What is important is that whatever approach you use you remain consistent, and you are completely honest with the pros and cons of your approaches.
If all else fails (e.g., you have a development team that utterly refuses to budge from old practices and is skeptical of learning new things), this is a very, very clear sign that you've outgrown your team it's time to leave your company!
Remember to consider the possibility that they're onto something you've missed. Being part of a team means taking turns learning & teaching.
Seconded. The whole idea that "enterprise development" is somehow distinct from (and usually the implication is 'more important than') normal development really irks me.
If there really is a benefit for using some technology, then you'll need to come up with a considered list of all the pros and cons that would occur if you switched.
Present this list to your co workers along with explanations and examples for each one.
You have to be realistic when creating this list. You can't just say "Saves us lots of time!!! WIN!!" without addressing the fact that sometimes it is going to take MORE time, will require X months to come up to speed on the new tech, etc. You have to show concrete examples where it will save time, and exactly how.
Likewise you can't just skirt over the cons as if they don't matter, your co-workers will call you on it.
If you don't do these things, or come across as just pushing what you personally like, nobody is going to take you seriously, and you'll just get a reputation for being the guy who's full of enthusiasm and energy but has no idea about anything.
BTW. Look out for this particular con. It will trump everything, unless you have a lot of strong cases for all your other stuff:
Requires 12+ months work porting our existing code. You lose.
Of course, "it depends" on the situation. Sometimes DataSets or DataTables are more suited, like if it really is pretty light business logic, flat hierarchy of entities/records, or featuring some versioning capabilities.
Custom object collections shine when you want to implement a deep hierarchy/graph of objects that cannot be efficiently represented in flat 2D tables. What you can demonstrate is a large graph of objects and getting certain events to propagate down the correct branches without invoking inappropriate objects in other branches. That way it is not necessary to loop or Select through each and every DataTable just to get the child records.
For example, in a project I got involved in two and half years ago, there was a UI module that is supposed to display questions and answer controls in a single WinForms DataGrid (to be more specific, it was Infragistics' UltraGrid). Some more tricky requirements
The answer control for a question can be anything - text box, check box options, radio button options, drop-down lists, or even to pop up a custom dialog box that may pull more data from a web service.
Depending on what the user answered, it can trigger more sub-questions to appear directly under the parent question. If a different answer is given later, it should expose another set of sub-questions (if any) related to that answer.
The original implementation was written entirely in DataSets, DataTables, and arrays. The amount of looping through the hundreds of rows for multiple tables was purely mind-bending. It did not help the programmer came from a C++ background attempting to ref everything (hello, objects living in the heap use reference variables, like pointers!). Nobody, not even the originally programmer, could explain why the code is doing what it does. I came into the scene more than six months after this, and it was stil flooded with bugs. No wonder the 2nd-generation developer I took over from decided to quit.
Two months of tying to fix the chaotic mess, I took it upon myself to redesign the entire module into an object-oriented graph to solve this problem. yeap, complete with abstract classes (to render different answer control on a grid cell depending on question type), delegates and eventing. The end result was a 2D dataGrid binded to a deep hierarchy of questions, naturally sorted according to the parent-child arrangement. When a parent question's answer changed, it would raise an event to the children questions and they would automatically show/hide their rows in the grid according to the parent's answer. Only question objects down that path were affected. The UI responsiveness of this solution compared to the old method was by orders of magnitude.
Ironically, I wanted to post a question that was the exact opposite of this. Most of the programmers I've worked with have gone with the custom data objects/collections approach. It breaks my heart to watch someone with their SQL Server table definition open on one monitor, slowly typing up a matching row-wrapper class in Visual Studio in another monitor (complete with private properties and getters-setters for each column). It's especially painful if they're also prone to creating 60-column tables. I know there are ORM systems that can build these classes automagically, but I've seen the manual approach used much more frequently.
Engineering choices always involve trade-offs between the pros and cons of the available options. The DataSet-centric approach has its advantages (db-table-like in-memory representation of actual db data, classes written by people who know what they're doing, familiar to large pool of developers etc.), as do custom data objects (compile-type checking, users don't need to learn SQL etc.). If everyone else at your company is going the DataSet route, it's at least technically possible that DataSets are the best choice for what they're doing.
Datasets/tables aren't so bad are they?
Best advise I can give is to use it as much as you can in your own code, and hopefully through peer reviews and bugfixes, the other developers will see how code becomes more readable. (make sure to push the point when these occurrences happen).
Ultimately if the code works, then the rest is semantics is my view.
I guess you can trying selling the idea of O/R mapping and mapper tools. The benefit of treating rows as objects is pretty powerful.
I think you should focus on the performance. If you can create an application that shows the performance difference when using DataSets vs Custom Entities. Also, try to show them Domain Driven Design principles and how it fits with entity frameworks.
Don't make it a religion or faith discussion. Those are hard to win (and is not what you want anyway)
Don't frame it the way you just did in your question. The issue is not getting anyone to agree that this way or that way is the general way they should work. You should talk about how each one needs to think in order to make the right choice at any given time. give an example for when to use dataSet, and when not to.
I had developers using dataTables to store data they fetched from the database and then have business logic code using that dataTable... And I showed them how I reduced the time to load a page from taking 7 seconds of 100% CPU (on the web server) to not being able to see the CPU line move at all.. by changing the memory object from dataTable to Hash table.
So take an example or case that you thing is better implemented differently, and win that battle. Don't fight the a high level war...
If Interoperability is/will be a concern down the line, DataSet is definitely not the right direction to go in. You CAN expose DataSets/DataTables over a service but whether you SHOULD or is debatable. If you are talking .NET->.NET you're probably Ok, otherwise you are going to have a very unhappy client developer from the other side of the fence consuming your service
You can't convince them otherwise. Pick a smaller challenge or move to a different organization. If your manager respects you see if you can do a project in the domain-driven style as a sort of technology trial.
If you can profile, just Do it and profile. Datasets are heavier then a simple Collection<T>
DataReaders are faster then using Adapters...
Changing behavior in an objects is much easier than massaging a dataset
Anyway: Just Do It, ask for forgiveness not permission.
Most programmers don't like to stray out of their comfort zones (note that the intersection of the 'most programmers' set and the 'Stack Overflow' set is the probably the empty set). "If it worked before (or even just worked) then keep on doing it". The project I'm currently on required a lot of argument to get the older programmers to use XML/schemas/data sets instead of just CSV files (the previous version of the software used CSV's). It's not perfect, the schemas aren't robust enough at validating the data. But it's a step in the right direction. The code I develop uses OO abstractions on the data sets rather than passing data set objects around. Generally, it's best to teach by example, one small step at a time.
There is already some very good advice here but you'll still have a job to convince your colleagues if all you have to back you up is a few supportive comments on stackoverflow.
And, if they are as sceptical as they sound, you are going to need more ammo.
First, get a copy of Martin Fowler's "Patterns of Enterprise Architecture" which contains a detailed analysis of a variety of data access techniques.
Read it.
Then force them all to read it.
Job done.
data-centric means less code-complexity.
custom objects means potentially hundreds of additional objects to organize, maintain, and generally live with. It's also going to be a bit faster.
I think it's really a code-complexity vs performance question, which can be answered by the needs of your app.
Start small. Is there a utility app you can use to illustrate your point?
For instance, at a place where I worked, the main application had a complicated build process, involving changing config files, installing a service, etc.
So I wrote an app to automate the build process. It had a rudimentary WinForms UI. But since we were moving towards WPF, I changed it to a WPF UI, while keeping the WinForms UI as well, thanks to Model-View-Presenter. For those who weren't familiar with Model-View-Presenter, it was an easily-comprehensible example they could refer to.
Similarly, find something small where you can show them what a non-DataSet app would look like without having to make a major development investment.