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

Why OO Sucks by Joe Armstrong (2000)

cs.otago.ac.nz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 396 posts

Re: Why OO Sucks by Joe Armstrong (2000)

#241

Post by pjmlp »

tombert wrote: post #72
tootie wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OO is the worst programming paradigm in the world except for all the others.

Admittedly I'm somewhat of a FP fanboy, but I seriously cannot disagree with you more on this. Functional Programming (and Logic Programming) are better than other paradigms because, unlike Java (or C++, or C#...) there is an emphasis on correctness , and the people working on FP compilers (like Haskell and Idris) are utilizing mathematics to do this. No idea on your opinion on mathematics, but to me Math/Logic reign…

You could be doing instead

    ((if (null? x)
      ;.....
      ))

Re: Why OO Sucks by Joe Armstrong (2000)

#242

Post by pjmlp »

josephg wrote: post #210
fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is mostly a reflection of the thing Java/C#/C++ have popularized as “OOP”: if one uses Common Lisp’s CLOS, much of the boilerplate associated with “design patterns” and OO architecture evaporates.

Yes absolutely. The article was written around 2000 when Java was the new sexy thing. When Joe talks about OOP being overhyped, he wasn’t talking about Rust’s traits or Common Lisp. He’s speaking about the hype around Java and C++, and the then-lauded three pillars of OO: Encapsulation, Inheritance and Polymorphism. Not all OO works that way. In retrospect, inheritance was probably a mistake. And as far as I can tell…

I learned OOP in 1992, using Turbo Pascal 5.5, and got hold of Turbo Pascal 6.0 with Turbo Vision, shortly thereafter.

My follow up OOP languages until 2000 were C++ alongside OWL, VCL, MFC. Clipper 5.x, Eiffel, Sather, Modula-3, Oberon variants, Smalltalk, CLOS, SWI Prolog, Delphi and naturally Java.

In 1999 I got a signed copy from the ECOOP 1999 proceedings, full of alternative OOP approaches.

We should strive to actually provide proper bases to CS students, instead of market fads.

Re: Why OO Sucks by Joe Armstrong (2000)

#243

Post by LandR »

pjmlp wrote: post #241
tombert wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Admittedly I'm somewhat of a FP fanboy, but I seriously cannot disagree with you more on this. Functional Programming (and Logic Programming) are better than other paradigms because, unlike Java (or C++, or C#...) there is an emphasis on correctness , and the people working on FP compilers (like Haskell and Idris) are utilizing mathematics to do this. No idea on your opinion on mathematics, but to me Math/Logic reign…

You could be doing instead ((if (null? x) ;..... ))

Shouldn't that be (if (nil? x))?

Re: Why OO Sucks by Joe Armstrong (2000)

#244

Post by LandR »

libria wrote: post #94
tombert wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Admittedly I'm somewhat of a FP fanboy, but I seriously cannot disagree with you more on this. Functional Programming (and Logic Programming) are better than other paradigms because, unlike Java (or C++, or C#...) there is an emphasis on correctness , and the people working on FP compilers (like Haskell and Idris) are utilizing mathematics to do this. No idea on your opinion on mathematics, but to me Math/Logic reign…

> How about having to create six different files Took me a few reads but it's better stated "six different classes". At first I was confused about why you rely on `java.io.File` for business logic. So, if I'm stuck on JVM, what's my FP alternative that compiles and runs comparatively? Clojure? Scala?

Yes, clojure

Re: Why OO Sucks by Joe Armstrong (2000)

#246

Post by blub »

overgard wrote: post #98
keithnz wrote: post #8

Everything sucks, they just all suck differently. I still think OO provides a pretty easy mental framework for programming. You can get good results. Bit of discipline without going crazy and it works really effectively. Despite its shortcomings.

That sounds wise but it doesn't really mean anything. There are things that suck about a Ford Pinto and there are things that suck about about a Tesla Model S, but saying that they both have their downsides is technically true while obscuring the fact that the Tesla is a muuuuuuuuuuuuuuch better car.

Good choice of example. Both the Pinto and Tesla, unlike most cars kill(ed) their owners in surprising ways.

Re: Why OO Sucks by Joe Armstrong (2000)

#247

Post by blub »

tombert wrote: post #72
tootie wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OO is the worst programming paradigm in the world except for all the others.

Admittedly I'm somewhat of a FP fanboy, but I seriously cannot disagree with you more on this. Functional Programming (and Logic Programming) are better than other paradigms because, unlike Java (or C++, or C#...) there is an emphasis on correctness , and the people working on FP compilers (like Haskell and Idris) are utilizing mathematics to do this. No idea on your opinion on mathematics, but to me Math/Logic reign…

Functional programming has no relevance to the correctness of code.

You'll notice that it's virtually unheard of to use any FP languages in critical software. Instead they use languages that lend themselves well to code reviews, static and dynamic analysis, model-based design and proofs, etc. Like C, Ada and some domain-specific stuff.

The kind of "correctness in the small" offered by Haskel through its type system can be obtain also in languages like C++, Swift and others. With the additional benefit of massive market share, teaching resources, mature tooling and so on.

Re: Why OO Sucks by Joe Armstrong (2000)

#248

Post by bad_user »

revvx wrote: post #150
tux1968 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't a method call a message, and the return value a message back? Or is it that "true OO" must be asynchronous?

> Isn't a method call a message, and the return value a message back? It is! In my view, the point that Alan Kay and Joe Armstrong are trying to make is that languages like C++/Java/C# etc have very limited message passing abilities. Alan Kay uses the term "late binding". In Kay's opinion, "extreme late binding" is one of the most important aspects of his OOP [1], even more important than polymorphism. Extreme late b…

C++'s vtable is also late binding, since you don't know which implementation you're calling until runtime. And there's no such thing as "extremely late binding".

> In C++, for example, the only kind of late binding that you have is abstract classes and vtables.

That's not true, you can always have a "send_message(string id)". Few people do it because you lose static type safety. And some languages, like C# and Scala, have dynamic types that allows for the "method_missing" protocol and such features are very unpopular.

To be honest I don't see much of a difference. I've worked with a lot of dynamic OOP languages, including with Erlang-style actors and I've never seen the enlightenment of dynamic OOP message passing.

And I actually like OOP, but I don't really see the point of all this hyperbole about Smalltalk.

Re: Why OO Sucks by Joe Armstrong (2000)

#249

Post by Zuider »

mpfundstein wrote: post #238
tokyodude wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what does late binding by you? That sounds like an argument for non-strictly typed languages. Isn't in the strict typing that prevents late binding? The compiler wants to know at compile time the types of all the messages and whether or not an object can handle that message hence all messages must be typed and all object must declare which messages they accept.

Objective c is a compiled language

Objective C is compiled, yes, but like Smalltalk OOP, the target object of the message is resolved and interpreted by that object at runtime.
Post reply on HN