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

Object-Oriented Programming is Bad (2016) [video]

m.youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 133 posts

Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad (2016) [video]

#71

Post by jstimpfle »

bunderbunder wrote: post #56

I really liked the first half - he provides some insightful thoughts on both why OOP doesn't quite deliver on the promise, and why it continues to be popular anyway. I am also becoming increasingly enamored of procedural programming as a default approach. Functional is also good - it's one of my first loves - but I find that it can be similarly prone to encouraging premature abstraction. Like OOP, that problem isn't…

The small-versus-large-functions discussion is not about spaghetti code. It's about the question whether you should chop one large block of first-do-this-then-do-that code into smaller independent blocks and then call them in that very sequence from a superordinate function.

In general I totally agree that sequential code should just be sequential, and it should not afford more functions. Because, the each time one looks at those additional functions, in your standard programming language, the first thing one must ask oneself is, "what is the context in which this function must work? What are all the callers of this function?". In simple, sequential code, the answer is often more clear. At least, it's clear that the block of code is really only ever "called" from one place.

The disadvantage is that the block can see unrelated variables that were defined higher up in the same function - or one must add a level of indentation everywhere to protect those.

Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad (2016) [video]

#72

Post by [deleted] »

stcredzero wrote: post #69
pacala wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well duh. We’ve been sold object oriented platforms for decades with the insistence that everything is an object, hiding its internals from the world. There was tepid support for representing plain data. At the heyday of the madness people were busy building object-over-network abominations like CORBA. Even today, the most popular enterprise platform, Java, does not support value types. In the free world, the widely…

At the heyday of the madness people were busy building object-over-network abominations like CORBA. There was even an unpleasant period of time in the 90's when people tried to make some of the Linux OS distro end-user apps run off of CORBA to bring about the interconnected "sea of objects" vision, slowing things down a lot. No wonder OO style is widely overused. It's overused in part, because it's easily sold. It's…

[deleted]

Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad (2016) [video]

#73

Post by 0815test »

stcredzero wrote: post #69
pacala wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well duh. We’ve been sold object oriented platforms for decades with the insistence that everything is an object, hiding its internals from the world. There was tepid support for representing plain data. At the heyday of the madness people were busy building object-over-network abominations like CORBA. Even today, the most popular enterprise platform, Java, does not support value types. In the free world, the widely…

At the heyday of the madness people were busy building object-over-network abominations like CORBA. There was even an unpleasant period of time in the 90's when people tried to make some of the Linux OS distro end-user apps run off of CORBA to bring about the interconnected "sea of objects" vision, slowing things down a lot. No wonder OO style is widely overused. It's overused in part, because it's easily sold. It's…

> There was even an unpleasant period of time in the 90's when people tried to make some of the Linux OS distro end-user apps run off of CORBA to bring about the interconnected "sea of objects" vision, slowing things down a lot.

That was a thing on the GNOME desktop (GNOME being short for GNU Networked Object Model Environment). The CORBA framework was called bonobo, and it was basically a very early version of what's now achieved via dbus. KDE had its own equivalent, known as DCOP. AIUI, both systems were replaced altogether when dbus became a thing.

Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad (2016) [video]

#74

Post by anonytrary »

Not shipping a working product before your deadline is bad. How you get there is up to you. OO isn't necessary but it can get you there. In a perfect world where deadlines didn't exist and everyone writing code was doing so for academic purposes, maybe OO wouldn't be necessary.

Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad (2016) [video]

#75

Post by jpochtar »

sisu2019 wrote: post #49
j_m_b wrote: post #14

The problem for me in regards to OOP is the complexity related to the management of state. OOP encourages mutability and understanding the state of an object as its methods are called can be confusing when additional internal (and often times, private) methods are called. In functional programming, state is something acted upon by functions. It is as simple as f(x) = y. Reasoning in functional programming is much clo…

In theory this sounds great but in reality every major application, game, operating system and even website is written in an OOP style. Why is that? People should first answer that question. Yeah, real existing software has flaws like every other thing in reality but at least it exists unlike a significant piece of fp style software. I like fp and I think it has a lot to teach but I think it's a bit presumptuous to a…

http://paulgraham.com/avg.html

Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad (2016) [video]

#76

Post by stcredzero »

scarface74 wrote: post #58
ravenstine wrote: post #31

In my experience, the thing that's wrong about object-oriented programming is not the object-orientation itself, but the over-application of it. - Sometimes more "procedural" programming provides better clarity. At other times, object-orientation is a cleaner approach. Neither should be a replacement for the other at all times. - The idea that objects should reflect how we think of real objects in the physical world…

One of the seminal books that people read about object modeling “Domain Driven Design” by Eric Evans writes about “transaction scripts”. Not everything needs to be modeled.

Not everything needs to be modeled.

The thing about Smalltalk, is that it adheres very closely to "everything is an object." This means that even low level mechanisms in Smalltalk have to allow a very nimble use of objects. This means that there can be serious cost/benefit mismatches when translating libraries/patterns/designs from languages like Smalltalk to others. Creating a lambda in Smalltalk is trivial business as usual. Other environments require more thought, have more limitations, have higher costs of their use. Factories are how you do normal operations in Smalltalk. In other languages, they become infrastructure that needs to be maintained.

Not everything needs to be modeled in every language. Basically, you model to the point where the cost/benefit works out, but go no further. In Smalltalk, the cost of modeling things is designed to be so low, almost everything is an object. So of course, the cost/benefit in different environments can be drastically different, and in many, modeling everything can be a waste.

Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad (2016) [video]

#77

Post by discreteevent »

Fellshard wrote: post #61
sisu2019 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In theory this sounds great but in reality every major application, game, operating system and even website is written in an OOP style. Why is that? People should first answer that question. Yeah, real existing software has flaws like every other thing in reality but at least it exists unlike a significant piece of fp style software. I like fp and I think it has a lot to teach but I think it's a bit presumptuous to a…

A fair bit of that can be easily explained as cargo cult - a fair number of developers simply believe, because it's how they've been taught and what's been stated as fact over and over and over, that OOP is just 'how you write code'.

Ok but objects have been successful for a very long time. And this is in a field where there are more potential early adopters than most. Programmers like new stuff.

I think they have been successful because in the end a lot of the world we deal with behaves like objects. Devices, processes, remote machines all accept messages and those messages have 'side effects' in that they change the future behaviour of that thing.

Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad (2016) [video]

#78

Post by felipeccastro »

vbuwivbiu wrote: post #66
felipeccastro wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Mental overhead is greatly reduced when you can assume that your data structures are immutable”. I’ve been reading lots of articles claiming that but I still haven’t understand how that’s so. If you have fifty functions all acting on the same piece of state, why would returning new objects instead of mutating would greatly reduce mental overhead? Isn’t there still mental overhead in tracking which of the fifty funct…

simply this: when any function returns a result, you never need to worry about anything else in the universe changing too. It's a self-contained operation with totally predictable results and no side effects.

Yeah but when you do need to mutate state, why returning a new object is any clearer than modifying an object and returning it? Especially when the new object you return is going to be used to update a state tree later. Isn’t this a side effect too, even if more indirect?

Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad (2016) [video]

#79

Post by discreteevent »

mjburgess wrote: post #21
j_m_b wrote: post #14

The problem for me in regards to OOP is the complexity related to the management of state. OOP encourages mutability and understanding the state of an object as its methods are called can be confusing when additional internal (and often times, private) methods are called. In functional programming, state is something acted upon by functions. It is as simple as f(x) = y. Reasoning in functional programming is much clo…

Yes, but I/O is impure and sequentially dependent, unlike mathematics. Maybe the "impedance mismatch" between pure-fp and I/O is too great, with the IO monad being the "leaky abstraction" of the FP world. Then OO is not a bad solution to an irrelevant problem, but a pretty-good solution to a bad relevant problem. EDIT: To clarify: The "problem" is change. Imperative programming relates sequential device-change over t…

Backus: Well, because the fundamental paradigm did not include a way of dealing with real time. It was a way of saying how to transform this thing into that thing, but there was no element of time involved, and that was where it got hung up.

Booch: That’s a problem you wrestled with for literally years.

Backus: Yeah, and unsuccessfully.

http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/201...

Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad (2016) [video]

#80

Post by smuszel »

vbuwivbiu wrote: post #66
felipeccastro wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Mental overhead is greatly reduced when you can assume that your data structures are immutable”. I’ve been reading lots of articles claiming that but I still haven’t understand how that’s so. If you have fifty functions all acting on the same piece of state, why would returning new objects instead of mutating would greatly reduce mental overhead? Isn’t there still mental overhead in tracking which of the fifty funct…

simply this: when any function returns a result, you never need to worry about anything else in the universe changing too. It's a self-contained operation with totally predictable results and no side effects.

Additionally you break up the implementation into two smaller tasks. First one being how to transform object A to object B. And second being how to wire up everything to pass object B to other functions needing it. In OOP we essentially do the two at once. It can turn into quite an overhead in complex system.
Post reply on HN