Live data from Hacker News

Object Oriented Programming is an expensive disaster which must end

smashcompany.com

101–110 of 123 posts

Re: Object Oriented Programming is an expensive disaster which must end

#101
post #46

This is a truly fantastic post. It isn't a rant. It's a story of enlightenment that I encourage all HN'ers to read and absorb. Disregard or play down the contents of this fantastic post at your peril. Understanding it and groking it could save you 5 years, 10 years or even a lifetime of writing software in the wrong way.

I have to assume you're being funny. Otherwise I'd like a batch of whatever it is you're smoking.

See, this is the brilliance of HN.

Not only is the OP mistaken as being almost a troll post but anyone who actually warns "er, no guys, this post is for real and you need to understand it or at least respect it to move forward in your careers" is also mistaken as "just being funny".

Just to clarify. No the OP is not a troll post or anything like it. It is deadly serious. And I am also being completely serious.

The OP is just someone who reached the end of his learning path of OOP. He found all its flaws and weaknesses and then discovered there is a whole other world out there called FP and that there are even languages which combine the best parts of OO and FP into one. Why is this considered a problem? Some people almost seem insulted by it. He is just trying to help you guys realise that the floor on which you're standing is not quite as solid as you mistakenly think.

As I said, it is a story of enlightenment. Discredit it at your peril, as you are only harming your own self development as a programmer. There is nothing wrong in learning FP and adding it to your toolbox. This doesn't mean you have to "give up" on OO. It just means you have two tools to select from rather than just one.

Observation: Unless they are famous or head up some popular OSS project, it seems that software developers are incapable of identifying or even respecting those who are clearly more knowledgeable/experienced than themselves.

Re: Object Oriented Programming is an expensive disaster which must end

#102
post #79
post #74

I've written my rebuttal here: http://axilmar.blogspot.gr/2014/10/object-oriented-programmi... .

You don't come across well in this at all. 200 classes in a OO project is pretty small really. And you've never used DI ever? Really?

I've written large systems in Java, C++ and yes, I have never ever used DI. Nor even seen any kind of AbstractFactory in Java.

Re: Object Oriented Programming is an expensive disaster which must end

#103
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't come across well in this at all. 200 classes in a OO project is pretty small really. And you've never used DI ever? Really?

I've written large systems in Java, C++ and yes, I have never ever used DI. Nor even seen any kind of AbstractFactory in Java.

I don't believe you. Are you mistaking DI for meaning a full blown IoC framework? DI is merely the abstract computer science concept. In FP land we call it partial application or P/A. But it is essentially the same thing. I honestly cannot fathom how a large project would look without DI. It must be hideous with massive amounts of coupling all over the place i.e. not something to be proud of. Refactoring must be very hard.

I would have to take a few guesses to know what an AbstractFactory is. That is a "J2EE Javaism" and always has been. So you aren't alone there ;)

Re: Object Oriented Programming is an expensive disaster which must end

#104
The whole point of OO was to allow more complex programs with reusable pieces/pieces that can be edited in isolation/exchangeable pieces, while also organizing everything. Saying to write everything procedurally, thus, removing features, seems inane to me.

Re: Object Oriented Programming is an expensive disaster which must end

#106
post #79
post #74

I've written my rebuttal here: http://axilmar.blogspot.gr/2014/10/object-oriented-programmi... .

You don't come across well in this at all. 200 classes in a OO project is pretty small really. And you've never used DI ever? Really?

I have never used DI in my 16 year professional career in C++ and Java land.

Re: Object Oriented Programming is an expensive disaster which must end

#107
post #74

I've written my rebuttal here: http://axilmar.blogspot.gr/2014/10/object-oriented-programmi... .

That's awesome :-) but... how did you manage to get through that massive rant and extract the author's main points?

I just read it, skipping the non-essential parts, after quickly scanning them.

I might have missed one or two points, but it doesn't really matter.

Re: Object Oriented Programming is an expensive disaster which must end

#108
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't come across well in this at all. 200 classes in a OO project is pretty small really. And you've never used DI ever? Really?

I have never used DI in my 16 year professional career in C++ and Java land.

You should blog about your alternative approach to structuring code bases that minimise coupling. It may be superior.

Re: Object Oriented Programming is an expensive disaster which must end

#109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to assume you're being funny. Otherwise I'd like a batch of whatever it is you're smoking.

See, this is the brilliance of HN. Not only is the OP mistaken as being almost a troll post but anyone who actually warns "er, no guys, this post is for real and you need to understand it or at least respect it to move forward in your careers" is also mistaken as "just being funny". Just to clarify. No the OP is not a troll post or anything like it. It is deadly serious. And I am also being completely serious. The OP…

Now I know you're being funny; brilliant :)

Oh, as for "us guys"--guess what? Some of "us guys" use the appropriate tool for the job, whether it's OOP, FP, IP, etc. and have been doing so for decades.

Re: Object Oriented Programming is an expensive disaster which must end

#110
post #15

Having programmed a lot of OO in Python and PHP (yeah, yeah, I know, but its OO implementation is actually rather good), I always felt OO was a pretty good way of doing things... Until I hit the Java scene. Boy, is it a big mess. There I found some of the worst unreadable, unmaintainable, ungrokable, complex and brittle code I've ever seen. And that's not an exception, rather it's the standard. I suddenly understood…

What are examples of a good approaches to generic logging? In the past I've found log4j and the python stdlib logging to be frustrating to work with. But when I had a shot at writing my own approaches, I found it to be one of those domains that's harder to deal with than it looks. Someone will have though - interested to know of a good approach.
Post reply on HN