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

The Repeated Deaths of OOP (2015)

loup-vaillant.fr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 220 posts

Re: The Repeated Deaths of OOP (2015)

#11

Post by 310ke »

Rochus wrote: post #3

This is an opinion piece from 2015. It goes without saying that there are no universal standard solutions. As an engineer, you learn how to proceed in a structured and systematic way and (hopefully) apply appropriate methods and technologies that fit the problem at hand. ECS is a good approach and there are many problems where this is a good fit; however, there are also problems where it is a less good fit. The same…

All engineering and technical tasks really. I was taught to think of learning these techniques as putting tools in my toolbox. Then when a situation arises I can select which tool I think might be the best fit. No ideology, no cargo-culting, just get it done.

Re: The Repeated Deaths of OOP (2015)

#12

Post by girvo »

Rochus wrote: post #5
yakubin wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article doesn't argue that ECS is a good fit for everything. It argues that it is a better fit than OOP for some of the things OOP was intended for. And that it's a broader theme, where OOP is usually not the right tool for the job, even when it was originally intended to solve that particular job.

The article is primarily trying to suggest that "OOP" has "died" so many times that it should no longer be used. As if OOP was an ideology to be committed to or not.

That is not what I took from the article at all.

Re: The Repeated Deaths of OOP (2015)

#13

Post by ncmncm »

Classes were never definitional for OO, so prototypes, as originated in Self and adopted in JS, are not a violation of it.

Function calls and messages are, fundamentally, isomorphic. Messages were never definitional.

The notion of "purity", everything is an object, was never definitional. That was a Smalltalk conceit. Alan Kay named the idea, but stole it. So he doesn't get to impose his religion.

What is definitional? Inheritance, encapsulation, methods. But when you abandon specious purity, OO becomes one organizational style among many. Where it is the right thing, it is. Where it isn't, something else is.

Sometimes mechanisms invented for OO are useful for other organizational purposes, without bringing along OO—which is fine. Implementation inheritance? Sure, why not? That's "bad OO", but OO isn't sacred, so not blasphemy. It has consequences, but they are sometimes—often, even—OK.

"Data-oriented"? "Entity-relationship"? "Functional"? "Pipelined"? Other organizational styles, also useful.

In places.

OO will not die. The others will not die. All organizational methods have their place. Games can have pockets of OO. Simulations can have pockets of OO. Nobody is keeping score.

Purity is a farce.

Re: The Repeated Deaths of OOP (2015)

#14

Post by kstenerud »

It sounds a lot like he's trying to claim victory via semantic quibbling.

We've learned a lot and incorporated a lot of ideas, machines, and concepts into the mainstream over the past few decades. But one thing that hasn't stayed the same is what set of things fits into what grab bag encompassed by a word someone came up with decades ago to describe the state of things at the time.

Once you start arguing "OOP" vs xyz or "FP" vs xyz, you've missed the point.

Re: The Repeated Deaths of OOP (2015)

#15

Post by ehnto »

smitty1e wrote: post #9

> Enough with the ECS advocacy however. Entity/component/system sounds like model/view/controller. But I like to think of data/logic/presentation. The point being that keeping these dimensions orthogonal is more imoprtant than how they are labeled.

They are quite different concepts and certainly in practice.

At it's barest, a controller organizes models and renders them into a view.

Again simplifying, an entity has components which describe it's functionality, and the entity can get passed through a system. The entity is the concept of the thing, and the components are it's features. The system uses the features to make decisions about how the entity interacts with the system.

I've never seen MVC used in anything but single-run applications that end with an discrete output. Whereas ECS is more often used in software with a perpetual state and loop, such as game engines.

Exceptions abound.

Re: The Repeated Deaths of OOP (2015)

#16

Post by Hermel »

ncmncm wrote: post #13

Classes were never definitional for OO, so prototypes, as originated in Self and adopted in JS, are not a violation of it. Function calls and messages are, fundamentally, isomorphic. Messages were never definitional. The notion of "purity", everything is an object, was never definitional. That was a Smalltalk conceit. Alan Kay named the idea, but stole it. So he doesn't get to impose his religion. What is definitiona…

The essence of OOP is not inheritance, that’s a nice to have. The essence of OOP is to encapsulate the data and the functions that operate on that data into an object and hide the internal state of the object from the rest of the program.

Re: The Repeated Deaths of OOP (2015)

#17

Post by orthoxerox »

smitty1e wrote: post #9

> Enough with the ECS advocacy however. Entity/component/system sounds like model/view/controller. But I like to think of data/logic/presentation. The point being that keeping these dimensions orthogonal is more imoprtant than how they are labeled.

ECS is not MVC. Components are data, systems are logic AND presentation, entities are lifetime management.

Re: The Repeated Deaths of OOP (2015)

#18

Post by dragonwriter »

ehnto wrote: post #15
smitty1e wrote: post #9

> Enough with the ECS advocacy however. Entity/component/system sounds like model/view/controller. But I like to think of data/logic/presentation. The point being that keeping these dimensions orthogonal is more imoprtant than how they are labeled.

They are quite different concepts and certainly in practice. At it's barest, a controller organizes models and renders them into a view. Again simplifying, an entity has components which describe it's functionality, and the entity can get passed through a system. The entity is the concept of the thing, and the components are it's features. The system uses the features to make decisions about how the entity interacts…

> I've never seen MVC used in anything but single-run applications that end with an discrete output.

MVCs original use was GUIs, which are not “single run applications with a discrete output”, but instead “software with a perpetual state and loop”. Yes, its since been adapted to web use, which usually fits that single-run description, but still...

Re: The Repeated Deaths of OOP (2015)

#19

Post by ncmncm »

Hermel wrote: post #16
ncmncm wrote: post #13

Classes were never definitional for OO, so prototypes, as originated in Self and adopted in JS, are not a violation of it. Function calls and messages are, fundamentally, isomorphic. Messages were never definitional. The notion of "purity", everything is an object, was never definitional. That was a Smalltalk conceit. Alan Kay named the idea, but stole it. So he doesn't get to impose his religion. What is definitiona…

The essence of OOP is not inheritance, that’s a nice to have. The essence of OOP is to encapsulate the data and the functions that operate on that data into an object and hide the internal state of the object from the rest of the program.

OO less inheritance has a different name: object-based. It isn't better or worse. But the distinction is worth keeping.

Re: The Repeated Deaths of OOP (2015)

#20

Post by slver »

ncmncm wrote: post #13

Classes were never definitional for OO, so prototypes, as originated in Self and adopted in JS, are not a violation of it. Function calls and messages are, fundamentally, isomorphic. Messages were never definitional. The notion of "purity", everything is an object, was never definitional. That was a Smalltalk conceit. Alan Kay named the idea, but stole it. So he doesn't get to impose his religion. What is definitiona…

> Alan Kay named the idea, but stole it. So he doesn't get to impose his religion.

Bit rich to say he "stole it" when he himself said it's just the foundational principle around which systems form (living or not). Which already implies he doesn't claim to have invented it.

Post reply on HN