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

151–160 of 355 posts

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#151

Post by vram22 »

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.

It's not just Medium. I get followers on Twitter who have that kind of bio, except that the bio words are separated by pipe signs. My bogofilter tells me that they are all likely part of a scam of the same group. Further confirmed by the content of their tweets, which follow a pattern.

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#152

Post by qwertyuiop924 »

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 "…

Ah, another lisp programmer, I see.

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#153

Post by icebraining »

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…

Re: classes, sounds more like you're describing structures. This is not really specific to OO, and it's available in FP languages (e.g. records in Haskell). And these provide scoping, which isn't really encapsulation, as far as I understand it.

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#154

Post by icebraining »

graycat wrote: post #143
nickpsecurity wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Get two kinds of essentially nested descendancy , static (from the source code) and dynamic from execution as make calls but from which have not yet returned. It's good to think about both at the same time. The push down stack of dynamic descendancy defines what parts of the code are active and, thus, can be called. E.g., the names currently known by inheritance are from the dynamic descendancy working through the st…

Not sure I got it right, does A pass a reference of B to C, since it's an internal subroutine? Isn't that essentially a closure?

EDIT: Reading a bit more into it, it's clear that's not it, thought the A/B/C example sounds like it could be done with a closure.

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#155

Post by seanmcdirmid »

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…

> 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.

And how often does that occur in practice for most of the programs people write? Even the most hardcore Haskell programmer isn't going around proving theorems about their modules beyond what the type system can provide for free (and that is true of statically typed OO also).

> The real problem with OOP is not that it forces you to do things a particular way, it's that what's new about it (privileging the first argument of each procedure, inheritance, lots of hidden mutable state) is bad, and what's good about it (encapsulation, polymorphism) is not new.

Encapsulated state has its own benefits and drawbacks (having explicit unencapsulated state limits reuse as they are reflected in type signatures), and anyways, is not unique to OOP (any commonly used language sans Haskell supports encapsulated state). The only way to get encapsulated state in Haskell is World -> World, which would pollute all function signatures it buried through (there is some good work in parametric effect systems, but its still early).

OOP also is not very new, being formed from the culmination have patterns used in the 70s, and is about the same vintage as FP.

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#156

Post by whateveracct »

Apocryphon wrote: post #137
whateveracct wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nope we mostly come from either state schools of our original residence or small liberal arts schools. I know of two hires from those schools, and I am the one who taught them pure typed FP.

I'm the only one who came in knowing pure FP at all and I didn't learn it via classes.

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#157

Post by seanmcdirmid »

Apocryphon wrote: post #137
whateveracct wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a bit biased. Berkeley and MIT students are pretty pragmatic, and are not typically FP enthusiasts (as in, many aren't even if some are on their own accord). Many European universities have more of an affinity to FP, comparatively speaking.

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#158

Post by seanmcdirmid »

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…

> 5. Reference semantics may result in unexpected sharing

> This has more to do with reference semantics than objects.

I would argue that these are intertwined. You can't really have objects without aliased identity and therefore reference semantics. Otherwise, you are in "land of the anonymous values" where FP techniques are much more useful, while objects clearly have names. (I'm an OOP fan BTW, but also heavily use FP.)

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#159

Post by qwertyuiop924 »

ltbarcly3 wrote: post #147
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…

I don't have any idea what you're talking about when you say 'functional came before OO'. I'm guessing you are talking about Lisp, but not only are Common Lisp (and the languages it evolved from) not at all functional in any technical sense of the word, many of them only had dynamic scoping, and often used mutation of data structures implicitly. Stop talking nonsense. EDIT: If you are talking about scheme, then the s…

>I don't have any idea what you're talking about when you say 'functional came before OO'.

Lambda calculus is technically the first functional language, and predates computers. But if we're talking about actual programming languages, SASL, one of the earliest functional languages actually implemented, was released the same year as Smalltalk, and was influenced by the older ISWIM, which was never implemented.

>I'm guessing you are talking about Lisp, but not only are Common Lisp (and the languages it evolved from) not at all functional in any technical sense of the word.

The functional style (writing most of your code as pure functions, keeping impure code isolated), however, can be practiced in ANY language. It makes your systems easier to reason about, because you know if state is being modified. And Lisps had many constructs that made FP convenient. Like map. So while Lisp, on the whole, wasn't functional, it was one of the easiest languages to write functional code in for some time.

>On top of all of the above points, nobody in the world other than a few extreme language-philes ever use any of the functional languages, and for good reason.

On the contrary, FP has heavy use in finance and other places where there is a low tolerance for error, as well as Microsoft and many other conpanies. It has heavy use in programming language research, and a functional programming language was used for program analysis to aid in the optimization of FFTW, which is still one of the fastest implementations of the Fast Fourier Transform.

>Stop talking nonsense.

As the above demonstrates, you're the only one who's doing that.

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#160

Post by qwertyuiop924 »

rubber_duck wrote: post #94
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…

I think the reason is much more fundamental - even now functional languages are slower - even with all the fancy modern compilers, optimizers, GCs that were not even in the same league 20 years ago or more. OO maps nicely to shared memory model and it's fairly low overhead compared to things like persistent collections data structures. This helps when you are forced to deal with lower level stuff. Nowdays we are IO b…

>even now functional languages are slower

OCaml is famously faster than C++.

Post reply on HN