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

Joe Armstrong: Why OO Sucks

harmful.cat-v.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 267 posts

Re: Joe Armstrong: Why OO Sucks

#31

Post by carsongross »

joe_the_user wrote: post #20
dgreensp wrote: post #11

OO vs. FP is just a matter of whether you focus the nouns or the verbs. The counterargument to the OP is that surely a function that manipulates "data" is less powerful and abstract than one that manipulates objects. For example, take an "interface" or abstract data type like Array, consisting of a length() and a get(i) method. (This is really called List in Java and Seq in Scala.) There may even be an associated typ…

You know I think this misses something. OO vs. FP is just a matter of whether you focus the nouns or the verbs. I am working on gigantic OO system right now. And the OP is correct. OO sucks. OO is about minding together a bunch of crap and getting it to slightly, only slightly less crappy. But it can do that and for that I am grateful . FP is about constructing something that is completely elegant from the start. If…

The key word there is gigantic not OO.

All gigantic systems are crappy, no matter what their underlying language/paradigm is. Slightly less crappy is a win.

Re: Joe Armstrong: Why OO Sucks

#32

Post by einhverfr »

NinetyNine wrote: post #4

There's a certain allure to saying code should be a certain way because of natural properties of computing, or our own feelings on what things are different and similar from what other things. The reason OO shines is because it allows you to make that distinction at the domain level rather than the code level. You organize your software into business objects, or components, and have these interact with each other. Th…

This is true to some extent, but a lot of it has to do with the fact that some OOP environments abstract too much.

The tricky part is in defining your interfaces and getting that right. OOP is one option, not the only one, and not something which is strictly an either-or thing.

The object oriented paradigm is a useful tool, but not every problem is a nail, and not every hammer is useful for driving nails.

Re: Joe Armstrong: Why OO Sucks

#33

Post by comex »

Locke1689 wrote: post #23
comex wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

harmful.cat-v.org has a lot of odd opinions: http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/dynamic-linking/ http://harmful.cat-v.org/political-correctness/girls-in-CS

Dynamic linking seems to be a rather straightforward technical argument. I'm not sure what to tell you if you can't or won't parse it.

I've had a conversation about it on HN in the past:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4112517

I wouldn't mind discussing it again.

Re: Joe Armstrong: Why OO Sucks

#34

Post by stock_toaster »

el_presidente wrote: post #21
stock_toaster wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that a bit of a false dilemma though? Can you not have clean interfaces and separation of concerns without OO -- even with something as 'simple' as python namespaces and dicts?

Dicts are objects.

That is an implementation detail due to python's object support. Dicts are a native type, that are hashmaps.

Unless you mean "object" as in "a thing"....

Re: Joe Armstrong: Why OO Sucks

#35

Post by joe_the_user »

zacharyvoase wrote: post #5

“Data structure and functions should not be bound together” — I can't agree with you more. However, in Smalltalk (and even Ruby, to some degree) objects are not data structures, they are collections of functions invokable on a 'thing' with an unknown structure. They have an internal structure—potentially immutable—but you never see this, because you only interact with methods on the object. And in many cases, there i…

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. Last I programmed Ruby, objects had member variables.

Re: Joe Armstrong: Why OO Sucks

#36

Post by it »

carsongross wrote: post #31
joe_the_user wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know I think this misses something. OO vs. FP is just a matter of whether you focus the nouns or the verbs. I am working on gigantic OO system right now. And the OP is correct. OO sucks. OO is about minding together a bunch of crap and getting it to slightly, only slightly less crappy. But it can do that and for that I am grateful . FP is about constructing something that is completely elegant from the start. If…

The key word there is gigantic not OO . All gigantic systems are crappy, no matter what their underlying language/paradigm is. Slightly less crappy is a win.

The problem is that OO thinking tends to inflate systems, spreading code all over the place even though it logically belongs in one place and adding object wrappers to things that don't need it. In my experience taking over Python code written by Java developers, I can usually shrink their OO code and make it more reliable by refactoring it into conceptually equivalent functional code wherever it makes sense and falling back on procedural style where appropriate.

Re: Joe Armstrong: Why OO Sucks

#37

Post by JoshTriplett »

dgreensp wrote: post #11

OO vs. FP is just a matter of whether you focus the nouns or the verbs. The counterargument to the OP is that surely a function that manipulates "data" is less powerful and abstract than one that manipulates objects. For example, take an "interface" or abstract data type like Array, consisting of a length() and a get(i) method. (This is really called List in Java and Seq in Scala.) There may even be an associated typ…

> OO vs. FP is just a matter of whether you focus the nouns or the verbs.

Indeed: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom...

Re: Joe Armstrong: Why OO Sucks

#38

Post by LnxPrgr3 »

notJim wrote: post #25

99% of the time I read these articles that say $commonly_used_thing [1] sucks, the arguments are always "it is fundamentally incorrect" or some variant thereof [2], and strawmen [3] abound. Where these arguments fall short are in addressing the simple fact that highly-skilled people produce very neat, well-designed systems that they are pretty happy with from a technical standpoint, and that make money every single d…

Every time someone says $commonly_used_thing sucks, people come out and point out that $commonly_used_thing is being used for $productive_activity.

It is possible to do amazing work with broken tools, or with the wrong tools. That doesn't mean these tools aren't broken or that they couldn't be better matched to the job.

Not that I think OOP is inherently evil. Reading the article, I don't think the author quite understands OOP. One example:

"In an OOPL I have to choose some base object in which I will define the ubiquitous data structure, all other objects that want to use this data structure must inherit this object."

If he really believes this, no wonder he's railing against OOP. That would be horribly broken.

Re: Joe Armstrong: Why OO Sucks

#39

Post by it »

ww520 wrote: post #9

I don't get it. If people don't like OO, why don't they just not use it. Just use your favorite methodology to get the job done. Why do they have to bad mouth it?

If we fail to point out the harmful effects of excessive OO usage then there is a higher likelihood of encountering it as legacy code written by people who didn't know any better. This can lead to wasted time and decreased job satisfaction.

Re: Joe Armstrong: Why OO Sucks

#40

Post by carsongross »

it wrote: post #36
carsongross wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key word there is gigantic not OO . All gigantic systems are crappy, no matter what their underlying language/paradigm is. Slightly less crappy is a win.

The problem is that OO thinking tends to inflate systems, spreading code all over the place even though it logically belongs in one place and adding object wrappers to things that don't need it. In my experience taking over Python code written by Java developers, I can usually shrink their OO code and make it more reliable by refactoring it into conceptually equivalent functional code wherever it makes sense and fall…

In my experience I'd guess you aren't dealing with a deficiency of OO, after all Python is an OO language.

I'd bet you are dealing with over-engineering, which is a cultural issue within the Java/J2EE community. And perhaps a lack of closures (I prefer those over list comprehensions, since they are more general) which make java needlessly verbose.

Post reply on HN