Why OO Sucks by Joe Armstrong (2000)

Post by stOneskull » Mon, Apr 22, 2019, 3:24 PM UTC

weberc2 wrote: post #86

Animats wrote: post #77

A few notes: Binding data and functions together beats operating on global data visible to everything. One of the big wins of OOP is less exposed global data. A big problem with OOP in C++ was that it wasn't opaque enough. The headers needed to use an object contain info only useful to the object's private functions. This creates recompile hell. Multiple inheritance is seldom worth the headaches. Overriding a member…

> Binding data and functions together beats operating on global data visible to everything. One of the big wins of OOP is less exposed global data. “Passing state as parameters” is what solved the “everything operating on global state” problem. Binding functions and state permitted polymorphism/abstraction. > Multiple inheritance is seldom worth the headaches. Single inheritance is never worth the headaches. :) > Obj…

Post by tombert » Mon, Apr 22, 2019, 3:34 PM UTC

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) ;..... ))

Post by fnrslvr » Mon, Apr 22, 2019, 3:53 PM UTC

mises wrote: post #299

fnrslvr wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You could also make a class of global functions and use that I'm not sure I understand your issue with doing this. You need to put your global (i.e. public static) functions in classes not because Java is forcing OO practices into everything, but because classes effectively serve as Java's translation units. I think they serve this purpose pretty well in practice.

Classes being Java's only translation units are one of the downsides that I'm mentioning. Really my objection is more that it doesn't allow use of the right tool for the job (which is not always an object).

  public unit Util {
      public void foo() {
          // do things
      }
  }

  Util.foo();

  public class Util {
      public static void foo() {
          // do things
      }
      // If we're really pedantic, we can ban construction of Util instances
      private Util() {}
  }

  Util.foo();

Post by tigershark » Mon, Apr 22, 2019, 4:02 PM UTC

DonaldPShimoda wrote: post #148

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?

In Kay's OO the only way to interact with an object was through method passing. It was important the the internal state of an object was kept private at all times. Getters/setters are technically message-passing methods, but they undermine the design goal because they more or less directly expose internal state to the public world. But we see getters/setters used constantly . People don't use OO in the way Kay intend…

Post by tabtab » Mon, Apr 22, 2019, 4:15 PM UTC