4 ms·
Just because a language supports OO doesn't mean that you are somehow trapped using only the OO paradigm. OO is a feature that gives you, amongst others, the po
by rikkus 11y ago
Just because a language supports OO doesn't mean that you are somehow trapped using only the OO paradigm. OO is a feature that gives you, amongst others, the possibility of expressing an inheritance relationship.
Most code I write in C# is OO in that it leverages encapsulation, but is generally written in a functional style (thanks LINQ) and uses inheritance for maybe two out of a hundred classes.
Most popular languages now are multiparadigm, so there's little point in criticising particular paradigms as if we're somehow stuck working with them and them only.
- calibraxis 11y agoYou’re trapped when coworkers use (and demand) OOP, not to mention libraries which require it. Like when your coworkers become religious about the ORM ("How DARE you write SQL!") when the database people actually have the superior model (relational) to the programmers (OOP). Also, many languages have an explicit critique of OOP. Take Rich Hickey's discussion of how OOP complects a bunch of features which can be available a la carte.
- rumcajz 11y agoLink?