I can't wait for his "Goodbye, Functional Programming" article.
Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming (2016)
11–20 of 41 posts
Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming (2016)
#12These posts are tedious, like a stereotypical newly converted non-smoker or vegetarian cornering you at a party. The same arguments about the diamond inheritance problem, and blah blah blah. Funny gun-foot meme...check. I'm not even saying it isn't true. I'm saying that it's boring. Functional programming has it's own set of stupidity and anti patterns. If your favorite language doesn't have any that spring to mind..…
Exactly the post is titled one sided and arguments are completely biased. The author should have started with the post with disclaimer about his pet language.
Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming (2016)
#13I feel that whenever someone complains about OO, it almost always starts with "I tried mapping everything to a class" and I always want to ask "Why?".
Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming (2016)
#14These posts are tedious, like a stereotypical newly converted non-smoker or vegetarian cornering you at a party. The same arguments about the diamond inheritance problem, and blah blah blah. Funny gun-foot meme...check. I'm not even saying it isn't true. I'm saying that it's boring. Functional programming has it's own set of stupidity and anti patterns. If your favorite language doesn't have any that spring to mind..…
People need to put it their way to learn. And to some readers these thoughts will be actually new. That's how opinion/experience/knowledge spreads.
Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming (2016)
#15the year annotation on this article got me :)
Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming (2016)
#16[2016] (not that it adds any credibility ....)
Updated. Thanks!
Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming (2016)
#17I feel like the author doesn't understand the design part of OOD. Yes, you can inherit yourself into rigidity. OOP doesn't prevent you from making design choices that turn out to be bad, or are bad in the first place.
You can't reuse a class without reusing the whole world? That's the purpose of dependency injection and depending on interfaces instead of implementation. Decoupling.
Diamond problem? Okay, granted. But this still solvable in most languages with interfaces.
I'm not really drinking the OO Kool-Aid here. I lean functional when I get the chance, but this article reads like someone who's against rope because they hanged themselves.
Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming (2016)
#18It is always seems kind of cute when someone discovers something new and thinks it's a silver bullet. On a side note, .NET is not a language, it's a framework, like JVM. In fact F# runs on .NET and it is purely functional.
Just being nitpicky here, but F# is not "purely" functional (and is not "pure-functional" either). But its OO subset is fairly small indeed.
Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming (2016)
#19For anyone not wanting to read the opinion behind the click-bait-titled article, here's the TLDR: the author never learned how to write OO code and is now declaring it dead.
Every problem he brought up is easily solvable by writing good code. FYI, I'm a big proponent of FP, but I'm not a proponent of disparaging things I don't fully understand.
Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming (2016)
#20It is always seems kind of cute when someone discovers something new and thinks it's a silver bullet. On a side note, .NET is not a language, it's a framework, like JVM. In fact F# runs on .NET and it is purely functional.
I'm shocked that in the 17+ years .NET's been around, we still hear people say that .NET is a language.