God damn it I begin to hate Medium. Just another Bullshit article. When I read those dipsts description: "Software Engineer and Architect, Teacher, Writer, Filmmaker, Photographer, Artist…" Great. And you want to tell me that OO is dead and functional the only future? Fuck off.
Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming
31–40 of 355 posts
Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming
#32OO paradigms are not magical and they have a learning curve. They can look simple and obvious but knowing how to abstract your problems using these techniques is not simple and it's what differentiates a good programmer from a bad one.
It's easy to complain about them but in most cases I see it's a misuse issue.
Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming
#33Let's wait for a few years and we'll see plenty of articles "Goodbye functional programming". You can write good and bad stuff with OOP, you can do the same with FP. There is no one-size-fits-all porgramming style.
Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming
#34I wonder if someone invented the "modular" programming yet. Judging by the UNIX paradigm of the command line tools, the idea is clearly out there. Instead of objects, do modules - things that do one thing, and carry minimal dependencies. You need a banana? Grab the banana module. You need a banana with ice-cream center? Feed the "center" callback of the banana module with "ice-cream" instead of "banana intestines". Y…
That's functional programming.
The irony of this and the comment above it...
Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming
#35God damn it I begin to hate Medium. Just another Bullshit article. When I read those dips ts description: "Software Engineer and Architect, Teacher, Writer, Filmmaker, Photographer, Artist…" Great. And you want to tell me that OO is dead and functional the only future? Fuck off.
I had the same reaction. We need more self-indulgent people!
Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming
#36I wonder if someone invented the "modular" programming yet. Judging by the UNIX paradigm of the command line tools, the idea is clearly out there. Instead of objects, do modules - things that do one thing, and carry minimal dependencies. You need a banana? Grab the banana module. You need a banana with ice-cream center? Feed the "center" callback of the banana module with "ice-cream" instead of "banana intestines". Y…
You can do this with almost any language, OOP or not. Just stay away from inheritance.
Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming
#37Let me try to list the objections: 1. Inheritance creates dependencies on their parent class 2. Multiple inheritance is hard 3. Inheritance makes you vulnerable to changes in self-use 4. Hierarchies are awkward for expressing certain relationships All true. But likewise, functions introduce dependencies on their arguments, and data structures introduces dependencies on their fields. You must consider your dependencie…
That is a good analysis. While I was reading this article all I could think is "You wanted to do things in a bad way and then you learned how to do it the right way and you don't like the right way?" His entire problem seems to be he thought OO was a magic bullet he could do whatever he wanted with and then he learned there was more to using OO than the three concepts he cites at the beginning. And this guy has suppo…
Everything has limits. You're right, there are no magic bullets. OO is easier to code and maintain. That alone is worth it.
Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming
#38Inheritance is overused in OOP. There are many ways to share object behaviors, inheritance only works well when you expect all objects of both classes to share all behavior except one or two things. Even then, you should investigate dependency injection before reaching for inheritance. For the example given for the Triangle Problem, the author isn't clear about exactly what behavior is being shared among the classes.…
Sounds to me like PoweredDevice would be an interface.
Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming
#39My biggest gripe with OOP is the Oriented part. If you design your entire codebase around OOP you will run into architectural problems. Especially with so-called Cross Cutting Concerns[0]. The way I tend to write code, is to just start with my main function and write whatever procedural code I need to solve my problem. If I start seeing patterns, in my data or algorithms, that's when I start pulling things out. I have heard this approach being called "Compression Oriented Programming", but I don't care much for what people want to call it.
This approach doesn't mean no objects ever. But only when your problem actually calls for it. Likewise you will also end up with parts that are purely functional, data-oriented, etc. But they will be used where they make sense.
On top of that I'm also using pure C99. It does away with a lot of the fluff and cruft in other languages. In the past I used to try to fit my problems into whatever the most fancy language features I was offered. Which cost me a lot of time analysing. Now I just solve my problem.
Mind you, C is not a perfect language. There are features I wish it had. But for my approach to programming it is the most sensible to use. Apart from maybe a limited subset of C++ (such as function overloading and operator overloading for some math)
Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming
#40God damn it I begin to hate Medium. Just another Bullshit article. When I read those dips ts description: "Software Engineer and Architect, Teacher, Writer, Filmmaker, Photographer, Artist…" Great. And you want to tell me that OO is dead and functional the only future? Fuck off.
Only thing missing is "Father..."