51–60 of 126 posts
What probably scares me most is, that managers think OO is in general a wonderful best practice you need to have in the company...
What scares me more are managers who think dogmatic adherence to "best practices" is the only way to be successful.
Compare the DirectX XNA OOP library to the OpenGL procedural library, and you will quickly see that when OOP is done right it makes code fun and easy to work with again. In my my mind OOP is the next logical step after procedural programming (simply packaging up a set of procedures into an object, and adding a few new ideas like inheritance and so on). Functional programming though is not the next logical step; it is…
Modules and namespaces are the next logical step. And they've got nothing to do with OOP and its dynamic dispatch, which is absolutely, totally illogical.
> Probably as good as any other programming paradigma out there. I take offence with postmodern relativism. Not every paradigm is created equal (and for the record, black culture is less "good" than white culture. Come on, "acting white" because you have good grades?). The way to get better as a professional is to analyze various ways of doing stuff and find which is better and how much of it you can use. This articl…
> The way to get better as a professional is to analyze various ways of doing stuff and find which is better and how much of it you can use. This article does exactly that. No it doesn't , this is a superficial rant, worse , this is a click bait that links to a real article with substance at the end , but wants to capture web traffic with an outrageous title. But it is not surprising for a consultancy. That's what's…
But I would add that the amount of research that has gone into this topic is woeful. As far as I can discern there is no consensus among the scientific community as to the pros and cons of each paradigm.
I suspect there is politics at play here. And don't give me any of that non-sense about the current scientific process being impartial. LOL. It's got to the point where you can't trust the conclusions drawn about anything where there are strong vested interests.
You can guess that functional programming is going to be his response I suppose considering this page is the second part of a functional programming article. (the first part being missing)
If you want to analyse, you would need to also talk about what OOP is good at and how that translate in whatever other paradigm. This article only concludes with a "I do think it is a valuable mechanism for developing software", but there is absolutely no backing for that statement anywhere in the article.
I tend to agree with GP. At the end of the day, for general programming, any paradigm is going to end up producing similar quality of code. Developer competence, motivation and budget are going to be #1 factors that determine code quality.
Google, OSS, Modern IDE, Engineering practices like Continuous Integration/Deployment, TDD/BDD are all having a much bigger impact on the code quality than the specific languages or paradigms.
I appreciate there's something I'm missing, but: I use closures to hold state all the time in node, I still don't understand why state in a closure is better than state in an object. If someone could explain this I'd be grateful: articles like this just seem to say 'state is bad' and ignore that it still exists in functional scopes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jesus christ you really destroyed any chance anyone had of taking your point seriously by just throwing in some racism.
I'm a misogynist as well. How does that affect my argument? That's the point of throwing in a controversial example: no matter how you feel about an issue, reality is still out there, with hard edges and sharp points. If you ignore it and go the "everything is just as good"-way, you suffer. You may feel good about yourself, but you still do worse.
It makes me concerned that if I agree with it, I am doing so because of equally faulty logic that has led you to believe racist and sexist claims should not be judged harshly.
The best way to see through language paradigm war propaganda is to look at pseudocode. Scientists, mathematicians, logicians write tons of pseudocode and it's almost entirely procedural.
Someone would ask "why not assembly/plain C/Fortran/etc.". The answer is that C++ gives you a lot of good ways to structure your code semantically, while still letting you produce tight machine code. That's the real kicker here - I need to reason about my program as an engineering construct running on real hardware, not as an expression of Computer Science algorithms.
In a nutshell, for a new programming language to be a viable way to build our core product, it has to
1. Go Fast and let us Go Faster Than Everyone Else, preferably letting me write platform-specific assembly when I need to
2. Interoperate with C++
I've seen a few recent languages attempt to cover 1., e.g. Go, Rust, Julia, for some use cases. However, I have never seen a language attempt to tackle 2. Not even for the case when you have vanilla classes with virtual functions and a few sane templates.
I agree with Carmack on: "'good C++' is better than 'good C'" OOP has some brilliant patterns. It is also very hard to do correctly.
[Shameless plug] For a philosophical interpretation on the differences between OOP and FP, you may enjoy my gist: Descartes, Berkeley and Functional Reactive Programming https://gist.github.com/dmvaldman/f957dd9a8ed3f6edf35d
It's actually a common misquote of Descartes to say "I think therefore I am." A more proper translation is "I think, I am" which has significant implications for his philosophy.
Subtlely different meanings to be parsed...