Are we still doing OOP?
hackinghat.com
Are we still doing OOP?
1–10 of 37 posts
Re: Are we still doing OOP?
#2The reason OO exists to the degree it does in my mind is that it makes it easier for Enterprise Architects to write code in Visio, this also lends itself to directly modeling the domain
so managers don't have to think. Which leads to
public class Money {
public string Currency { get; set; }
public float Price { get; set; }
}
"The money class is the root of all evil"
Re: Are we still doing OOP?
#3The reason OO exists to the degree it does in my mind is that it makes it easier for Enterprise Architects to write code in Visio, this also lends itself to directly modeling the domain so managers don't have to think. Which leads to public class Money { public string Currency { get; set; } public float Price { get; set; } } "The money class is the root of all evil"
OO models exist because they reflect how we describe things when not talking to computers. "This is Spot. Spot Is-A Dog. See Spot.run(). Spot.runs == :fast."
They're a crutch for people who can't (or don't have the training to) think in terms of sets, mappings, graphs, combinators, etc.
Re: Are we still doing OOP?
#4The reason OO exists to the degree it does in my mind is that it makes it easier for Enterprise Architects to write code in Visio, this also lends itself to directly modeling the domain so managers don't have to think. Which leads to public class Money { public string Currency { get; set; } public float Price { get; set; } } "The money class is the root of all evil"
OO models exist because they reflect how we describe things when not talking to computers. "This is Spot. Spot Is-A Dog. See Spot.run(). Spot.runs == :fast." They're a crutch for people who can't (or don't have the training to) think in terms of sets, mappings, graphs, combinators, etc.
...or maybe FP is a crutch for mathematicians and purists. You're making a huge mistake: we shouldn't adapt our thinking to computers, we should adapt computers to our thinking and make them easier to operate. According to your logic, writing hexadecimal code is the holy grail of computer programming.
Re: Are we still doing OOP?
#5Terrible blog post: present a series of special cases where OOP is not the best fit => throw OOP away except for class libraries?
Thanks to Paul Graham's language abuse, dead is becoming a meme: "X is dead" = "I don't use X".
Re: Are we still doing OOP?
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
OO models exist because they reflect how we describe things when not talking to computers. "This is Spot. Spot Is-A Dog. See Spot.run(). Spot.runs == :fast." They're a crutch for people who can't (or don't have the training to) think in terms of sets, mappings, graphs, combinators, etc.
...or maybe FP is a crutch for mathematicians and purists. You're making a huge mistake: we shouldn't adapt our thinking to computers, we should adapt computers to our thinking and make them easier to operate. According to your logic, writing hexadecimal code is the holy grail of computer programming.
And you are making an equally huge mistake: that thinking in terms of sets, mappings, graphs, combinators, etc doesn't help. It does. And if a programmer is incapable of understanding those concepts, he should learn them.
The fact is, we shouldn't adapt computers to our thinking, nor our thinking to computers. We should adapt both to our problems.
Re: Are we still doing OOP?
#7Ironically, I don't think OOP was really meant to be used for business objects. I think inheritance doesn't work very well with objects whose backing store needs to fit into a relational database someplace.
OO really shines with UI programming, where incrementally building up behaviour through inheritance makes a lot of sense.
Re: Are we still doing OOP?
#8As with all programming methodologies; OOP is a useful tool for situations where it works.
Outside of that other things become useful... this is how the world has always worked :)
Re: Are we still doing OOP?
#9Probably the most disturbing thing about the article is the original title: "Programming like it's 1995". I'd feel better if he had said "OOP is like so 1980's".
Re: Are we still doing OOP?
#10Probably the most disturbing thing about the article is the original title: "Programming like it's 1995". I'd feel better if he had said "OOP is like so 1980's".