Ask HN: Why do new(ish) programming languages eschew OOP features?

Post by igouy » Mon, Jul 01, 2019, 3:57 PM UTC

scottlocklin wrote: post #144

chkas wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unpopular answer to the unpopular answer: OOP was pure fashion .. “Our customers wanted OO prolog so we made OO prolog” .. http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/OO_programming/why_oo_suck... .. screw things up with any idiotic "object model" crap. .. http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/c++/linus

I always figured that the main thing people really wanted out of "OO" was simply namespaces. People forget about dealing with older programming systems with global namespace (C, Matlab, Fortran, etc). Namespaces were a big step forward, and in the early days, most of the languages with them were OO, so it would be easy to mistake the benefits of namespaces for OO magic. OO crapola also mapped reasonably well onto GUI…

Post by apta » Mon, Jul 01, 2019, 3:59 PM UTC

Skinney wrote: post #66

souenzzo wrote: post #40

Rust, Go, Julia, Nim are all cruly braced, procedural, mutable, object oriented languages. I think we need languages that bring new paradigms. All that you quoted fail in this respect. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fpDlAEQio4

Neither Go nor Rust has objects or inheritance.

Post by raiph » Mon, Jul 01, 2019, 4:16 PM UTC

keyle wrote: post #34

blihp wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious why you find it a breath of fresh air? The Wikipedia link in the post you're responding to specifically states that composition over inheritance is an OOP principle. If one needs to abandon OOP to make use of composition, was OOP actually what was being done or was it instead an exercise in creating an class-based taxonomy? (a lot of people seem to fall into this trap)

It's the way OOP was used from what I saw 10-20 years ago. It was all inheritance, from uni course to patterns used etc. I've only fell into composition when I got into video game development. We saw it a bit more with Silverlight but now it's such a clear movement (composition over inheritance) that it's in my resume's motto.

Post by Redoubts » Mon, Jul 01, 2019, 4:46 PM UTC

igouy wrote: post #181

scottlocklin wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always figured that the main thing people really wanted out of "OO" was simply namespaces. People forget about dealing with older programming systems with global namespace (C, Matlab, Fortran, etc). Namespaces were a big step forward, and in the early days, most of the languages with them were OO, so it would be easy to mistake the benefits of namespaces for OO magic. OO crapola also mapped reasonably well onto GUI…

> simply namespaces 1980 module, Modula-2 1979? package, Ada http://www.drdobbs.com/open-source/history-and-goals-of-modu...

Post by tathougies » Mon, Jul 01, 2019, 4:57 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #179

tathougies wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pure fashion? I think that's a bit much. Rust was inspired heavily by ML/Haskell/C++, which are not particularly object oriented (C++ is object friendly, not object oriented).

C++ was explicitly about adding support for OOP to C, and most modern languages that have OOP support derive from C++ in that support (often by way of Java), though there area few that remain that are directly inspired by Smalltalk without C++ as an intermediary, and a smaller number that don't come from the class-based OO family rooted in Smalltalk (JS notably, though modern JS has added class-based features.)