111–120 of 126 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You sound like a religious adept. Open your eyes, just see the truth, blah-blah-blah. I asked for a very simple thing - a piece of code which is easy, robust and maintainable because of its use of OOP. All of the qualities are objective and easy to measure, regardless of your philosophy. There must be at leat some examples of this. If they do not exist, then your claims that OOP eliminates complexity are nothing but…
[deleted]
I found it ironic that he used a quote from Alan Kay to attempt further his point that "object-oriented programming is bullshit"
A bit of Googling yields no source for the alleged Alan Kay quote either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have no understanding of postmodernity. It basically shows that the way you think is to project reality with all its degrees of freedom onto an axis that you arbitrarily decided and that allows you to give an order to the world and to classify things as being better than others. For instance, you seem to think that striving for getting better grades is "good", but this is not granted, who said so? God? Science? T…
> The fact that you don't understand that means that you can't be part of a productive discussion, because you will always think you're right. You actually managed to make me laugh. As it happens, that's pretty much my idea of postmodernism, which I dislike just as much after your (very well-written) reminder. But doesn't it strike you as ironic that you just managed to attack everything I have to say even before I s…
Compare the DirectX XNA OOP library to the OpenGL procedural library, and you will quickly see that when OOP is done right it makes code fun and easy to work with again. In my my mind OOP is the next logical step after procedural programming (simply packaging up a set of procedures into an object, and adding a few new ideas like inheritance and so on). Functional programming though is not the next logical step; it is…
> In my my mind OOP is the next logical step after procedural programming Modules and namespaces are the next logical step. And they've got nothing to do with OOP and its dynamic dispatch, which is absolutely, totally illogical.
So, a module is a higher-level instrument of encapsulation and information hiding than an object, but still very much OO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
You sound like a religious adept. Open your eyes, just see the truth, blah-blah-blah. I asked for a very simple thing - a piece of code which is easy, robust and maintainable because of its use of OOP. All of the qualities are objective and easy to measure, regardless of your philosophy. There must be at leat some examples of this. If they do not exist, then your claims that OOP eliminates complexity are nothing but…
How is that a simple thing? What are you looking for? If I showed you a piece of code which was I said was simple, robust, and maintainable, how would you know whether it's true or not, unless you know the language, the problem it's intended to solve, and have a personal history of maintaining it?
No, you're asking a question with no possible answer, and then intended to use that lack as proof in your own mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The fact that you don't understand that means that you can't be part of a productive discussion, because you will always think you're right. You actually managed to make me laugh. As it happens, that's pretty much my idea of postmodernism, which I dislike just as much after your (very well-written) reminder. But doesn't it strike you as ironic that you just managed to attack everything I have to say even before I s…
You've done more to destroy productive conversation than anyone else in this thread by leaping straight to the most generic and most inflammatory tangent possible. That is not what HN discussions are for. Please don't do it again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
C++....
I didn't work with C++ for 10 years now; is it now possible to declare a function "pure" and have checks that it doesn't have side effects?
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3141087/what-is-meant-wit...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't work with C++ for 10 years now; is it now possible to declare a function "pure" and have checks that it doesn't have side effects?
It's called "const". http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3141087/what-is-meant-wit...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've done more to destroy productive conversation than anyone else in this thread by leaping straight to the most generic and most inflammatory tangent possible. That is not what HN discussions are for. Please don't do it again.
The flagged comment was doing ok (score of about 4-5) until a reply to it called it racist, which polarized the topic and caused the score to dive. This more or less confirmed the point that cultural relativism is the norm, and a bad norm at that.
Don't do any more Molotov cocktail-tossing on HN, please.
But after I saw a comparison of OOP and FP [0] I had to laugh a bit. What about monads and category theory? I also didn't fully grasp FRP with all its streams and lifting.
