Ask HN: Why do new(ish) programming languages eschew OOP features?

Post by DrJones1098 » Mon, Jul 01, 2019, 1:12 PM UTC

stupidcar wrote: post #27

Many systems people want to build with computers cannot be easily conceptualised as graphs of largely self-contained objects, interacting through swapping messages. These problems instead revolve around complex data processing, and are more easily conceptualised as data flowing through a network of functions, and into and out of containers. It is possible to build these systems using OO, by reifying the network of fu…

Post by cartlidge » Mon, Jul 01, 2019, 1:13 PM UTC

ridiculous_fish wrote: post #87

cartlidge wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't an inherent issue of composition though. You could say {...students(ajaxDb), ...teachers(ajaxDb)} to create an object that can handle both students and teachers. Or you could say public class StudentsAndTeachers extends Students implements IStudents, ITeachers { private _teachers; public constructor(Database db, Teachers teachers) { super(db); _teachers = teachers; } public getTeacher(TeacherId teacherId)…

Composition is entirely capable of creating an ad-hoc informally specified bug-ridden slow implementation of inheritance.

Post by draw_down » Mon, Jul 01, 2019, 1:36 PM UTC

jchw wrote: post #54

ajross wrote: post #5

Unpopular answer: pure fashion. There's nothing wrong with object methods (that's 100% pure syntax vs. a function call) and an implicit "this" scope for symbols (which is just a limited form of dynamic scope[1]). They don't make code hard to understand. OO can be abused to produce bad designs, of course, but that's not an indictment of its syntax. Non-syntactic aspects are maybe a more involved discussion. For an exa…

The most upvoted answer begins with the words “Unpopular answer” and then continues with cynicism. That definitely feels very HN. (No offense, of course; just found it amusing.) Although you make some good points, I disagree with the premise that it’s pure fashion. Language syntax doesn’t prevent you from implementing various OO paradigms but when you combine syntax with community norms, things do tend to be constrai…

Post by yoz-y » Mon, Jul 01, 2019, 1:40 PM UTC

larrik wrote: post #150

vinayms wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> OOP encourages adding layers of abstraction, indirection, and generic stuff [...] Generics/templates and indirection are not OOP. Procedural style encourages them as well. You can see that in C++ itself.

C++ is OOP, though.

Post by dangerface » Mon, Jul 01, 2019, 1:43 PM UTC