Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 355 posts

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#131

Post by jrapdx3 »

SFJulie wrote: post #63
Illniyar wrote: post #5

I think the functional vs OO debate is being done with a very narrow point of view. Functional came before OO and there are reasons why it became much more popular- it had much better, easier and simpler solution to the most common problems of the 90's and early 2000's, namely handling GUI and keeping single process app state (usually for a desktop app). It fares much worse in today's world of SaaS and massive parall…

Pre Scriptum: For the GUI tcl/tk made the root of all OOP model and no one has been innovating since. Just copying. But, it is not whether a paradigm/language is better than another one. It is about getting shits done. The paradigm/language war/agile are cargo cult science. It is transforming a practice into a religious thinking while it is not the case. All the list he makes about OOP is right, on the other hand, yo…

I'm pretty familiar with Tcl/Tk but not entirely clear what you mean about Tcl/Tk and OOP. It seemed like you said the Tk container hierarchy was the model that OOP platforms copied. I'd agree that Tk's widget model is very useful as a way to build GUIs, but it doesn't have the abstraction features found in Java, etc.

Tk could be seen as a predecessor of DOM and CSS (as widget-building paradigm), possibly other widget libraries like GTK as well. In Tcl, OOP has evolved along other, if overlapping lines, as can be seen in the core oo::* namespace.

Advantages and disadvantages of various OO systems for Tcl have been discussed for a couple of decades. Issues around all of the aspects of OOP reviewed in the article were evident and the focus of disagreements, which showed the limitations of any particular approach and, as usual, that no free lunch or perfect answer can ever be found.

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#132

Post by nickpsecurity »

graycat wrote: post #74

I find many of the objects in .NET very useful and use them in my code. Also in my code I define and use some classes. I like the idea of classes. E.g., in my Web pages, I have a class for the user's state . When a new user connects, I allocate an instance of that class. Then I send that instance to my session state store server. To do that, I serialize the class to a byte array and then send the byte array via TCP/I…

What were the benefits of PL/I scoping vs others?

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#133

Post by l_dopa »

eutectic wrote: post #108
overgard wrote: post #59

Programming paradigms are a lot like political parties -- they tend to lump a lot of disparate things together with a weakly uniting theme. You don't need inheritance for encapsulation to be useful, for instance. The problem is, sometimes you agree with only a small part of the platform. None of these things individually are terrible ideas if tastefully applied, but it all gets clumped together into one big blob of "…

Except that there is a real advantage to using pure functional programming; being able to easily prove theorems about your code and understand different components in isolation. There is a reason why the majority of proof assistants are implemented as functional languages. Most functional languages even give you ways of modelling imperative code (e.g. monads) in a way which hardly sacrifices expressiveness. The real…

"Pure" functional programming isn't the only alternative. There's plenty of benefit from just using a language with reasonable semantics (e.g. ML) that doesn't force you to contort simple programs into bizarre "OO" patterns.

Whether or not you want your language to enforce segregating (most) effects is a separate issue, about which reasonable people can disagree.

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#134

Post by eutectic »

l_dopa wrote: post #133
eutectic wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that there is a real advantage to using pure functional programming; being able to easily prove theorems about your code and understand different components in isolation. There is a reason why the majority of proof assistants are implemented as functional languages. Most functional languages even give you ways of modelling imperative code (e.g. monads) in a way which hardly sacrifices expressiveness. The real…

"Pure" functional programming isn't the only alternative. There's plenty of benefit from just using a language with reasonable semantics (e.g. ML) that doesn't force you to contort simple programs into bizarre "OO" patterns. Whether or not you want your language to enforce segregating (most) effects is a separate issue, about which reasonable people can disagree.

Agreed. And for the record, I also like imperative languages (e.g. C), where appropriate.

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#135

Post by twic »

ebbv wrote: post #26
millstone wrote: post #21

Let 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…

> And this guy has supposedly been writing in OO languages for decades? What?

This is the bit i don't get. It's like he learned OOP in the '90s, when everyone thought inheritance was rad and nobody had realised how terrible mutating shared state was, and then fell asleep for twenty years. None of this article, none of it, has any relevance to how OOP is practiced by informed people today.

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#136

Post by ern »

We keep getting caught in theoretical cesspits. Perhaps the way forward is to reduce our focus on philosophical discussions of programming paradigms, and to iteratively figure out, using well-defined metrics and outcomes, how best to develop software(and to define these in the first place). Taste, one-size-fits-all trends and hype are what drive the industry, and we tend to ignore, or hopelessly lament, the (unmeasured) waste that results from these.

And then, once we have hard data, we should have the courage to follow the data, even if it means throwing away our cherished pet paradigms and methodologies.

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#137

Post by Apocryphon »

whateveracct wrote: post #127
lispm wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real disadvantage of pure functional programming is that it is notoriously difficult to use and thus only very few programs outside specialized domains are written in them. For example I would guess that in a typical enterprise (say, a manufacturing company), 0.0001% of the software is written in a pure functional language. Things OO languages 'force' us seem to be relatively easy to use: sending a message to a c…

I work in a group of teams that is mostly new college grads and nobody has trouble writing pure FP business logic in Scala. We don't go as far as doing pure FP for all effects though (although we are starting to do that more as well) If we can do it, so can everyone else ;)

They come Berkeley and MIT, colleges that are renowned for teaching functional languages in their intro to programming courses, don't they.

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#138

Post by aibottle »

aibottle wrote: post #31

God 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.

Oh damn, 72 points on HN, time to do a "How I reached >70 upvotes on HN and changed the way I think of myself" - Article on Medium ;)

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#139

Post by alanaut »

georgiecasey wrote: post #122
_gi12 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The self-descriptions people use these days are so ludicrous it's hard to tell if it's satire. If I had a Medium account, here's how my description would read: "Software Engineer, Philanthropist, Astronaut, Shark Hunter, Breaker of Chains, Lord Commander of the Snack Bin, Protector of the Repo, and Part-time Cat Dad" Too much or just right?

storyteller that seems to be really hot right now

Cross Pollinator as well. Just take a look at any Design Thinking agency.

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#140

Post by alanaut »

biocomputation wrote: post #104
aibottle wrote: post #31

God 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.

Agreed. Just about everything on Medium is crap. It's all designed to push the same social media narcissism button.

Do you have any suggestions for alternatives? I think HN does an excellent job of separating the person from the ideals.
Post reply on HN