Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 355 posts

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#121

Post by thinkloop »

ebbv wrote: post #29
Illniyar wrote: post #5

I think the functional vs OO debate is being done with a very narrow point of view. Functional came before OO and there are reasons why it became much more popular- it had much better, easier and simpler solution to the most common problems of the 90's and early 2000's, namely handling GUI and keeping single process app state (usually for a desktop app). It fares much worse in today's world of SaaS and massive parall…

I agree with you. Moreover, I think anyone who is rabidly attaching themselves to a programming paradigm of any kind is doing themselves (and anyone who has to work with them) a disservice. It's all just tools. Committing yourself fully to a single tool like functional or OO or whatever is just as silly as a woodworker attaching themselves to only a single form of joinery.

Of course limiting oneself to one thing gives less options than two things, but this "tool" analogy (that keeps coming up) is not fair. Better would be to compare to the woodworking shop itself, where there are many tools that together solve a wide class of problems. You can run multiple shops if you like, with varying combinations of tools, and large overlap in the problems they can solve, but the overhead involved is not the same as choosing a screwdriver to screw and a hammer to smash.

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#122

Post by georgiecasey »

_gi12 wrote: post #52
aibottle wrote: post #31

God damn it I begin to hate Medium. Just another Bullshit article. When I read those dips ts description: "Software Engineer and Architect, Teacher, Writer, Filmmaker, Photographer, Artist…" Great. And you want to tell me that OO is dead and functional the only future? Fuck off.

The self-descriptions people use these days are so ludicrous it's hard to tell if it's satire. If I had a Medium account, here's how my description would read: "Software Engineer, Philanthropist, Astronaut, Shark Hunter, Breaker of Chains, Lord Commander of the Snack Bin, Protector of the Repo, and Part-time Cat Dad" Too much or just right?

storyteller

that seems to be really hot right now

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#123

Post by lispm »

Kequc wrote: post #70

OO is treated almost like a religion by some people. It's useful to be able to create instances of some things but the place OO fails is the "oriented" part. Code is much easier to maintain and understand written in a functional state. If something doesn't need to be an instance, it probably shouldn't be one. This article articulates a lot of problems I've noticed in OO code, I think it would be foolish to ignore it.…

> Code is much easier to maintain and understand written in a functional state.

Why is it then that programs written in OO outnumber FP software by 100000:1 or more. For example most of the software written for iOS and macOS are written in C++, Objective C or Swift. All three are class-based object-oriented languages.

What you say may not be true or may not be very important.

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#124

Post by bsaul »

Funny how some people believe software programming is one big problem to solve as a whole, rather than a craft. OO is a one tool in your toolbox. A good craftman doesn't use one tool, he knows what tool to use for which work.

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#125

Post by vlunkr »

The king is dead, long live the king! Thinking that a new framework/language/paradigm will solve all your problems is naive. The author should know that if they've truly been programming for decades, as stated in the article.

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#126

Post by jm547ster »

aibottle wrote: post #31

God damn it I begin to hate Medium. Just another Bullshit article. When I read those dips ts description: "Software Engineer and Architect, Teacher, Writer, Filmmaker, Photographer, Artist…" Great. And you want to tell me that OO is dead and functional the only future? Fuck off.

Usually not a fan of flavoursome language here but in this case it's apt.

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#127

Post by whateveracct »

lispm wrote: post #117
eutectic wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that there is a real advantage to using pure functional programming; being able to easily prove theorems about your code and understand different components in isolation. There is a reason why the majority of proof assistants are implemented as functional languages. Most functional languages even give you ways of modelling imperative code (e.g. monads) in a way which hardly sacrifices expressiveness. The real…

The real disadvantage of pure functional programming is that it is notoriously difficult to use and thus only very few programs outside specialized domains are written in them. For example I would guess that in a typical enterprise (say, a manufacturing company), 0.0001% of the software is written in a pure functional language. Things OO languages 'force' us seem to be relatively easy to use: sending a message to a c…

I work in a group of teams that is mostly new college grads and nobody has trouble writing pure FP business logic in Scala. We don't go as far as doing pure FP for all effects though (although we are starting to do that more as well)

If we can do it, so can everyone else ;)

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#128

Post by whateveracct »

TillE wrote: post #79
Illniyar wrote: post #5

I think the functional vs OO debate is being done with a very narrow point of view. Functional came before OO and there are reasons why it became much more popular- it had much better, easier and simpler solution to the most common problems of the 90's and early 2000's, namely handling GUI and keeping single process app state (usually for a desktop app). It fares much worse in today's world of SaaS and massive parall…

This is a good point. Functional is a really useful model for mostly stateless data processing. When you have lots of state that needs to be mutable, not so much.

Even state is easier when modeled purely though imo. Especially once you have to backtrack and rollback state. If you use pure state, it's trivial. If you don't, gl!

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#129

Post by ChuckMcM »

ebbv wrote: post #26
millstone wrote: post #21

Let me try to list the objections: 1. Inheritance creates dependencies on their parent class 2. Multiple inheritance is hard 3. Inheritance makes you vulnerable to changes in self-use 4. Hierarchies are awkward for expressing certain relationships All true. But likewise, functions introduce dependencies on their arguments, and data structures introduces dependencies on their fields. You must consider your dependencie…

That is a good analysis. While I was reading this article all I could think is "You wanted to do things in a bad way and then you learned how to do it the right way and you don't like the right way?" His entire problem seems to be he thought OO was a magic bullet he could do whatever he wanted with and then he learned there was more to using OO than the three concepts he cites at the beginning. And this guy has suppo…

I read it slightly differently. The author has an internal notion of what "good" programming is, that appears to contain the concepts "compact", "correct", and "uniform".

For compact, a "good" program converts the expression of intent (the source code) into the execution (executable) into a package of data in which both statically (being loaded, being resident) "good" is defined by the minimum use of resources, and dynamically (while running) it minimizes its resource usage (and thus is "fast").

For correct, a "good" program works the same way every time you compile it and run it. Good in this case would be systems which notify you of changes which can affect the existing compiled code.

And for "uniform" the same syntax or tools are applied in the same way for all idioms. "Bad" here is the number of special cases that have to be accounted for (or inversely good is the lack of special cases).

As he wrote, the "promise" of the object oriented approach to programming has not been fulfilled according to a set of criteria that the author came up with internally. That sums to an opinion of dislike based on an internal metric.

That said, since I share what seem to be his unidentified metrics for "goodness" I found myself agreeing with his statements. I recognize though that there are many metrics which others may choose to rank more highly than those so rather than "failed promise" I'd characterize it as "It hasn't worked out to provide a better solution for me."

Post reply on HN