OOP Is Dead, Long Live OOP
gamedev.net
OOP Is Dead, Long Live OOP
1–10 of 357 posts
Re: OOP Is Dead, Long Live OOP
#2More resources on DOD (Data Oriented Design):
Re: OOP Is Dead, Long Live OOP
#3One thing that I'm surprised this doesn't cover, especially since it's so C++-centric, is that modern C++ OOP is much more defined by lifetime/scope management than anything else. What defines something as an object is the fact that it doesn't exist until it is constructed, and doesn't exist after it gets destructed (which is the case even for fundamental types, with the exception of char/std::byte, btw).
Hot take: RAII has basically taken over everything else as far as structural design foundation goes. Type erasure and encapsulation still play a role, but it's not nearly as fundamental anymore.
Re: OOP Is Dead, Long Live OOP
#4OOP is just a mental model. Deep down everything is made of bits. The church of OOP has failed but if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck it probably is useful to make a duck class. We're now down to fighting for nuances. You can do most things with OOP or without OOP but each path has some upsides and downsides and most of the time it's good to use some things it provides where it makes sense and not get too religious about it. The great architect has the foresight on how the code will be used in five years and design it accordingly.
Re: OOP Is Dead, Long Live OOP
#5Author needs to actually state what ECS is. From context I don't think he/she is referring to Amazon's Elastic Compute Service.
Re: OOP Is Dead, Long Live OOP
#6OOP is just a mental model. Deep down everything is made of bits. The church of OOP has failed but if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck it probably is useful to make a duck class. We're now down to fighting for nuances. You can do most things with OOP or without OOP but each path has some upsides and downsides and most of the time it's good to use some things it provides where it ma…
Yup, I like to think the religious war has subsided, and we're a little more free to do things in ways which work, are concise, readable and maintainable, even in previous bastions of enterprise OOP fervour like Java.
Re: OOP Is Dead, Long Live OOP
#7Author needs to actually state what ECS is. From context I don't think he/she is referring to Amazon's Elastic Compute Service.
In a gamedev context, ECS stands for Entity Component System.
Re: OOP Is Dead, Long Live OOP
#8OOP is just a mental model. Deep down everything is made of bits. The church of OOP has failed but if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck it probably is useful to make a duck class. We're now down to fighting for nuances. You can do most things with OOP or without OOP but each path has some upsides and downsides and most of the time it's good to use some things it provides where it ma…
I think this relates to what you're saying.
I've never felt any frustration that OOP feels like the wrong tool when I'm using languages that give me the choice to use it or not (like Python, and JavaScript). But when I'm using Java, as one example, it often feels like I'm really locking myself into a design up front.
In Python, especially. I'll find myself starting off all experiments or simple projects with functions and basic data types. As something evolves and I want some semantic clarity I'll stop using dicts and start using namedtuples. And then at some point I may replace the namedtuples with classes. From there I may discover value in having subclasses so I'll add a few (but this is exceedingly rare in my line of work).
Re: OOP Is Dead, Long Live OOP
#9If we just had made inheritance as something to be avoided unless absolutely needed then OOP would have probably never got such a bad reputation. All the other concepts make perfect sense.
Re: OOP Is Dead, Long Live OOP
#10OOP is just a mental model. Deep down everything is made of bits. The church of OOP has failed but if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck it probably is useful to make a duck class. We're now down to fighting for nuances. You can do most things with OOP or without OOP but each path has some upsides and downsides and most of the time it's good to use some things it provides where it ma…
I think this relates to what you're saying. I've never felt any frustration that OOP feels like the wrong tool when I'm using languages that give me the choice to use it or not (like Python, and JavaScript). But when I'm using Java, as one example, it often feels like I'm really locking myself into a design up front. In Python, especially. I'll find myself starting off all experiments or simple projects with function…
But that's the whole point of JAVA. It's an opinionated platform with a hyper-standardized workflow. Sure, that limits creativity, but in many business contexts, the last thing you want is your programmers getting "cute".
There's a straight line from requirements to implementation; no meandering involved. At least that's the theory. In practice...