How Class-based Programming Sucks (2011)
loup-vaillant.fr
How Class-based Programming Sucks (2011)
1–10 of 147 posts
Re: How Class-based Programming Sucks (2011)
#2The thing about "Class based Programming" - or Object Orientated Programming - is that it allows you to model a problem domain in real-world terms. No one approach is ever going to be perfect; OO being mutable makes it perhaps less founded (on the face of things) on formal principles, but for a lot of large codebases it can have a great beneficial effect on readability and maintainability - cognitive overhead is, perhaps, reduced when you can "ground" your understanding in real-life terms.
At the end of the day, pick what language and coding paradigms best suit your problem domain and you as a coder. Pick right, and there's no mistake there.
Re: How Class-based Programming Sucks (2011)
#3In case you don't know ML, you should. Also note that though OCaml is the most popular ML dialect right now, Standard ML is where it all started (PolyML is a good Standard ML implementation: http://www.polyml.org/)
Re: How Class-based Programming Sucks (2011)
#4Best (and most humorous) argument against Java's object oriented obession that I've ever read is: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom...
Re: How Class-based Programming Sucks (2011)
#5This is a very good article. The point about mutable state is key. Class based programming encourages you to treat objects as little bags of mutable state, instead of as values, and everything goes downhill from there. Its one thing to not go all the way to disallowing mutation. Its another to encourage it to be used pervasively.
Re: How Class-based Programming Sucks (2011)
#6The thing about "Class based Programming" - or Object Orientated Programming - is that it allows you to model a problem domain in real-world terms. No one approach is ever going to be perfect; OO being mutable makes it perhaps less founded (on the face of things) on formal principles, but for a lot of large codebases it can have a great beneficial effect on readability and maintainability - cognitive overhead is, per…
OOP actually doesn't model the real world well at all. It seems to on the surface, but it completely ignores time.
In the real world, everything is a process. Nothing ever stays the same or stands still. No object is the same object from one millisecond to the next.
Immutable state isn't just a formal exercise--it's a more authentic model of the world.
Re: How Class-based Programming Sucks (2011)
#7The thing about "Class based Programming" - or Object Orientated Programming - is that it allows you to model a problem domain in real-world terms. No one approach is ever going to be perfect; OO being mutable makes it perhaps less founded (on the face of things) on formal principles, but for a lot of large codebases it can have a great beneficial effect on readability and maintainability - cognitive overhead is, per…
OOP actually doesn't model the real world well at all. It seems to on the surface, but it completely ignores time. In the real world, everything is a process. Nothing ever stays the same or stands still. No object is the same object from one millisecond to the next. Immutable state isn't just a formal exercise--it's a more authentic model of the world.
"everything is a process"
To me that's as bad as saying "everything is an object".
I'd rather try and understand where each approach is best rather than picking a single approach and dogmatically applying it in every scenario.
Re: How Class-based Programming Sucks (2011)
#8The thing about "Class based Programming" - or Object Orientated Programming - is that it allows you to model a problem domain in real-world terms. No one approach is ever going to be perfect; OO being mutable makes it perhaps less founded (on the face of things) on formal principles, but for a lot of large codebases it can have a great beneficial effect on readability and maintainability - cognitive overhead is, per…
OOP actually doesn't model the real world well at all. It seems to on the surface, but it completely ignores time. In the real world, everything is a process. Nothing ever stays the same or stands still. No object is the same object from one millisecond to the next. Immutable state isn't just a formal exercise--it's a more authentic model of the world.
I'm sorry, are you arguing that immutability models the world more well than OO because no object in the real world ever stays the same?
Re: How Class-based Programming Sucks (2011)
#9The thing about "Class based Programming" - or Object Orientated Programming - is that it allows you to model a problem domain in real-world terms. No one approach is ever going to be perfect; OO being mutable makes it perhaps less founded (on the face of things) on formal principles, but for a lot of large codebases it can have a great beneficial effect on readability and maintainability - cognitive overhead is, per…
Mutable state can be a huge pain in the ass. A common mistake OOP beginners, and even "experienced" developers, make is the creation of this complex jungle of entangled objects that all directly or indirectly manipulate each other's internal states. If you've ever had to work with such a code base for a prolonged amount of time you are pretty quickly ripe for a year-long sabbatical. There is simply no way to reason about the control flow and state of the program without investing a lot of time and mental effort. Sometimes it's almost impossible.
I don't know, I think it's a point where education fails. Your average enterprise developer should be forced to read books like "Clean Code" by Bob Martin before being allowed to touch a keyboard.
Re: How Class-based Programming Sucks (2011)
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
OOP actually doesn't model the real world well at all. It seems to on the surface, but it completely ignores time. In the real world, everything is a process. Nothing ever stays the same or stands still. No object is the same object from one millisecond to the next. Immutable state isn't just a formal exercise--it's a more authentic model of the world.
I'm sorry, are you arguing that immutability models the world more well than OO because no object in the real world ever stays the same ?
No need to apologize. With immutability you have to explicitly model temporal changes.