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

Why OO Sucks by Joe Armstrong (2000)

cs.otago.ac.nz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 396 posts

Re: Why OO Sucks by Joe Armstrong (2000)

#71

Post by dmix »

james-mcelwain wrote: post #64
civility wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this context, C and JavaScript would not be considered functional. They have functions, but that's not what most people mean by "functional". While it's possible to restrict yourself to a functional subset in both of them, they would typically fall into the "imperative" category. Imperative programming languages (like C and JavaScript) don't generally impose any discipline on the users.

I think this might be a little unfair to JavaScript. No doubt it's a multi-paradigm language, but there's a huuuge FP community in JS, and loads of code bases (esp. in React) are written in a very functional style. Definitely not comparable to passing function pointers around in C.

Almost everyone I've come across who writes JS in a "functional style" has done it because they've had prior experience using a FP language and are applying those lessons to JS. I believe the OP is talking about those FP languages, such as Haskell and Clojure, which have a very different programming experiences.

While JS supports it in many ways, it's still not a style inherent in a multi-paradigm language like Javascript nor is it (really) the primary style in popular frameworks - despite the fact inspiration from FP languages/libraries has been increasingly common in popular frontend frameworks.

Additionally, even if you go full-bore FP on JS, it's still not the same. Almost no one goes full-bore FP in JS because it really doesn't make sense to nor is it an easy thing to do.

(And I say all of this as a frequent user of https://ramdajs.com)

Re: Why OO Sucks by Joe Armstrong (2000)

#72

Post by tombert »

tootie wrote: post #12
keithnz wrote: post #8

Everything sucks, they just all suck differently. I still think OO provides a pretty easy mental framework for programming. You can get good results. Bit of discipline without going crazy and it works really effectively. Despite its shortcomings.

OO is the worst programming paradigm in the world except for all the others.

Admittedly I'm somewhat of a FP fanboy, but I seriously cannot disagree with you more on this.

Functional Programming (and Logic Programming) are better than other paradigms because, unlike Java (or C++, or C#...) there is an emphasis on correctness, and the people working on FP compilers (like Haskell and Idris) are utilizing mathematics to do this.

No idea on your opinion on mathematics, but to me Math/Logic reign supreme; the more mathematically-bound your program is, the less likely it is to do something you don't want later.

Compare this to Java. It's 2019, and we're still doing `if (x==null) return null` all over the place (I'm aware that the option type exists but that doesn't really help when it's not enforced and none of my coworkers use it). How about having to create six different files for something that I could have written in 20 lines in Haskell? Or how about the fact that the type system exists to help with optimizations, and due to a lack of support for structured typing, it can only be useful for that.

I realize that I'm picking on Java, but Java is the biggest target when it comes with OOP as the industry understands it. I personally cannot stand having to create fifty files do to something like a database wrapper, and in Java that's effectively the only way to program.

Re: Why OO Sucks by Joe Armstrong (2000)

#73

Post by TravHatesMe »

enraged_camel wrote: post #37
peterashford wrote: post #15

I'm really sick of these 'why blah sucks' posts. Clearly OOP works for a lot of people. If it doesn't work for you, don't use it. My personal feeling is that FP works better when the problem domain is more data oriented, requiring transformation of data streams whereas OOP is good when the problem domain is about simulating or modeling where you want to think about interacting agents of some kind. The whole 'X is one…

Please refrain from such self-centered, flippant dismissals. They tend to get in the way of potentially good discussions. >>Clearly OOP works for a lot of people. Something can work for a lot of people, and still suck. >> If it doesn't work for you, don't use it. Language and tool choices in our industry are made by a tiny minority. In fact, sometimes the people making those decisions are not even developers themselv…

Please refrain from telling others to refrain. The negatives are worth discussing, but not the positives? I want to hear everyone's thoughts not only yours.

Re: Why OO Sucks by Joe Armstrong (2000)

#74

Post by cdaringe »

dmix wrote: post #71
james-mcelwain wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this might be a little unfair to JavaScript. No doubt it's a multi-paradigm language, but there's a huuuge FP community in JS, and loads of code bases (esp. in React) are written in a very functional style. Definitely not comparable to passing function pointers around in C.

Almost everyone I've come across who writes JS in a "functional style" has done it because they've had prior experience using a FP language and are applying those lessons to JS. I believe the OP is talking about those FP languages, such as Haskell and Clojure, which have a very different programming experiences. While JS supports it in many ways, it's still not a style inherent in a multi-paradigm language like Javas…

Yup. So many good FP => JS langs too.

Re: Why OO Sucks by Joe Armstrong (2000)

#75

Post by civility »

james-mcelwain wrote: post #64
civility wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this context, C and JavaScript would not be considered functional. They have functions, but that's not what most people mean by "functional". While it's possible to restrict yourself to a functional subset in both of them, they would typically fall into the "imperative" category. Imperative programming languages (like C and JavaScript) don't generally impose any discipline on the users.

I think this might be a little unfair to JavaScript. No doubt it's a multi-paradigm language, but there's a huuuge FP community in JS, and loads of code bases (esp. in React) are written in a very functional style. Definitely not comparable to passing function pointers around in C.

FP is different things to different people. For me, it's pure functions and a preference for purely functional data scructures (Okasaki style).

Also to me, FP has an emphasis on avoiding mutating state. The second example on the React front page shows how to mutate state, and then they just build from there. I don't use React, but looking at those examples, it all looks very OO to me.

Re: Why OO Sucks by Joe Armstrong (2000)

#76

Post by [deleted] »

Nition wrote: post #65
harimau777 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think what I'm about to say is necessarily inherently true, but it reflects how things seem to work in practice: It seems to me that part of the problem is that OO doesn't force you to have discipline and/or without constant vigilance (which product owners are never willing to schedule for) the system inevitably gets out of control over time. On the other hand, it seems to me that the core principles of funct…

I wish more languages would let you do stuff like mark reference parameters to methods as unable to be changed or reassigned within the method, get a readonly reference to a list without having to make a copy, that sort of thing. It doesn't have to be forced, just give me the option so I can get a guarantee on something if I want to.

[deleted]

Re: Why OO Sucks by Joe Armstrong (2000)

#77

Post by Animats »

A few notes:

Binding data and functions together beats operating on global data visible to everything. One of the big wins of OOP is less exposed global data.

A big problem with OOP in C++ was that it wasn't opaque enough. The headers needed to use an object contain info only useful to the object's private functions. This creates recompile hell.

Multiple inheritance is seldom worth the headaches.

Overriding a member function needs declaration support. The usual cases are 1) the parent function needs to be called first, 2) the parent function needs to be called last, and 3) the parent function needs to not be called at all. Which case is to be used is properly a property of the parent, but in most OOP languages, it's expressed as code in the child.

The use cases for generics are rather limited. Collections, yes. Beyond that, it's usually someone getting cute. That way leads to the "metaprogramming" mess. Go has a few built in parameterized types - maps, arrays, and channels. Go2 may have generics, but the designers are struggling with what to add that doesn't take them down the rabbit hole.

Objects are probably more useful than some of the things invented to replace objects, like "traits".

Re: Why OO Sucks by Joe Armstrong (2000)

#78

Post by magicalhippo »

jonreem wrote: post #28
nuclear_eclipse wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That looks an awful lot like OOP to me...

One of the many difference is that there is no inheritance, and implementations of traits can be added for types long after they are defined. Traits in rust are not like java interfaces.

How are traits specific to being a functional language rather than an OO language though?

I mean, I don't see anything horribly functional-language-specific about your trait example.

Re: Why OO Sucks by Joe Armstrong (2000)

#79

Post by [deleted] »

QuackingJimbo wrote: post #11
mises wrote: post #3

I think this may be another one of those swearing-in-church type opinions, but I think C++ is excellent as a compromise here. It's got its faults, but C++ allows use of objects when necessary or helpful without the ridiculously pedantic OO of Java. It is quite nice to be able to use it when convenient while not having to do so when stupid.

You getting downvoted for this completely inoffensive (at worst) comment is pretty sad I swear C++ gets a bad rap because most people have only seen a gross mixture of C++98 and C in their codebases A fully modern C++11 codebase is a beautiful thing

[deleted]

Re: Why OO Sucks by Joe Armstrong (2000)

#80

Post by kbp »

gboudrias wrote: post #48
keithnz wrote: post #8

Everything sucks, they just all suck differently. I still think OO provides a pretty easy mental framework for programming. You can get good results. Bit of discipline without going crazy and it works really effectively. Despite its shortcomings.

Agreed. I remember thinking "what don't I get? Why do we need getters and setters?". After some years (and discovering Python), I realized there's nothing to get, it's just ridiculous overengineering 95% of the time. Same goes for a lot of stuff in OO. I attribute it to the corporate mindset it seems to thrive in, but I could be wrong.

The important thing is restricting your public interface, hiding implementation details, and thinking about how easy your code (and code that uses it) will be to change later. It's not an OO vs anything thing.

When you want a value from a module/object/function/whatever, whether or not it's fetched from a location in memory is an implementation detail. Java and co provide a short syntax for exposing that implementation detail. Python doesn't: o.x does not necessarily mean accessing an x slot, and you aren't locking yourself into any implementation by exposing that interface as the way to get that value. It's more complicated than Java or whatever, here, but it hides that complexity behind a nice syntax that encourages you to do the right thing.

Some languages provide short syntax for something you shouldn't do and make you write things by hand that could be easily generated in the common case. Reducing coupling is still a good idea.

Post reply on HN