All evidence points to OOP being bullshit (2013)
blog.pivotal.io
All evidence points to OOP being bullshit (2013)
1–10 of 126 posts
Re: All evidence points to OOP being bullshit (2013)
#2With billions and billions of wealth created by SaaS companies that base their platforms and websites on OOP.
Re: All evidence points to OOP being bullshit (2013)
#3What probably scares me most is, that managers think OO is in general a wonderful best practice you need to have in the company...
Re: All evidence points to OOP being bullshit (2013)
#4With billions and billions of wealth created by SaaS companies that base their platforms and websites on OOP.
>With billions and billions of wealth created by SaaS companies that base their platforms and websites on software.
FTFY
Re: All evidence points to OOP being bullshit (2013)
#5> Extremist languages like Java force you to think of everything in terms of objects.
Erm, Java is by far not the most OO programming language there is.
For example, primitive types are not objects (no, auto-boxing doesn't make them objects).
> But is Object Orientation (OO) a good idea?
Probably as good as any other programming paradigma out there.
> Does it have problems?
Sure, like every other language as well.
> Is it the right tool for everything?
No, like every other language isn't as well.
> Let’s explore some of these questions in a slightly tongue in cheek and cathartic rant.
And here I stopped reading. If you need to rant, do it over coffee and don't waste my time when even your introduction is not witty enough to keep my interest.
Re: All evidence points to OOP being bullshit (2013)
#6"All evidence" seems to me a real gross overstatement here. The author collected some topics, where he means that OOP is bad and sticks some (partly related) statements of other people to it and wants to convince with that, even when he makes some valid points here [1].
I do not buy that.
The reality is, that when OOP is correctly executed (and there is the real culprit, since few people have really understand it!) it really can help you to lower the complexity of programs -- and that is decisive, not some halve-religious statements.
[1] One example: Inheritance vs. Composition -- even OOP people have seen the problem that overuse of inheritance is bad. But they don't throw the whole thing out of the window, but tell where to use it or restrict its usage. Don't just find the problems and fanatically throw all (even the good stuff) out of the window!
Re: All evidence points to OOP being bullshit (2013)
#7Can someone make a chrome extension to filter out the OOP vs FP articles on hacker news? I mean, how many more articles do we need? Is there anything new?
Yes, FP is cleaner. Yes, OOP is useful for things like plugins. Yes, favor composition over inheritance. Yes, FP is impossible to read. Yes, immutability has its limits. Yes, Yes, Yes. Enough already.
Re: All evidence points to OOP being bullshit (2013)
#8Depends on how you use it, of course. Libraries make wonderful showcases for OOP strengths - I always like to give Java Collections as an example. But if you actually build your application code as OOP... well, I might privately think you deserve everything that happens to you because of that.
I think education carries most of the guilt for this. The typical examples given in OOS classes are stuff like Car is an ancestor of Truck and SportsCar. Which led to Beans and Entreprise Java. You never want this kind of shit with your data. Much better to use plain old maps to carry content the way God intended, and to put your effort in creating flexible and reusable methods.
Re: All evidence points to OOP being bullshit (2013)
#9[deleted]
Re: All evidence points to OOP being bullshit (2013)
#10Wow, so many people commenting in the thread below that article seem to have swallowed tiny uncle bobs.