3 ms·

I was waiting for the one true Scotsman argument to show up in the discussion. I had to wait less than I expected. OOP fans seem to need resort to it more often

by srean 11y ago

I was waiting for the one true Scotsman argument to show up in the discussion. I had to wait less than I expected. OOP fans seem to need resort to it more often than others, I wonder why. If you take away inheritance there is nothing that the conventional OOP languages facilitate over and above what languages with closures provide (happy to be educated otherwise). Those have been around some 30 years before. Anyone likes it or not inheritance is firmly a part of the baggage now inspire of Kay being quite clear about its utility or necessity

mcphage 11y ago
They resort to it, because programmers who dislike OO have very bizarre views of what OO is, what it's all about, and how it's used.
- srean 11y ago
  Little unsolicited wordly advice: If holding on to a belief requires you to rationalize that everybody else is stupid and wrong may be it is time to re-evaluate your belief. If OOP were that good how come nobody made a killing with an implementation that would make these 'true Scotsman' folks happy. What I am pointing out is that other paradigms don't seem to need such pervasive apologism.
  - mcphage 11y ago
    > If holding on to a belief requires you to rationalize that everybody else is stupid and wrong may be it is time to re-evaluate your belief. Hardly. There's plenty of valid criticisms of OO out there. However, that does not mean every criticism of OO is valid. Take this one, for instance: the author is complaining that OO is optimized for class inheritance, when it's not the normal case. However, plenty of OO languages don't have classes, or inheritance, and so it falls on its face as a criticism of OO. > If OOP were that good how come nobody made a killing with an implementation that would make these 'true Scotsman' folks happy. Because no OO implementation will make them happy. A little unsolicited worldly advice: programmers think themselves paragons of rationality, but they're susceptible to the same flow of fashion, and the same desire to believe ill of something they don't like, as everyone else. > other paradigms don't seem to need such pervasive apologism. They do—take a look at the comments when articles come out critical of functional programming, most of which are as good as the one under discussion here. Or when OO supplanted structural programming the first place.

by srean 11y ago

mcphage 11y ago

They resort to it, because programmers who dislike OO have very bizarre views of what OO is, what it's all about, and how it's used.

srean 11y ago
Little unsolicited wordly advice: If holding on to a belief requires you to rationalize that everybody else is stupid and wrong may be it is time to re-evaluate your belief. If OOP were that good how come nobody made a killing with an implementation that would make these 'true Scotsman' folks happy. What I am pointing out is that other paradigms don't seem to need such pervasive apologism.
- mcphage 11y ago
  > If holding on to a belief requires you to rationalize that everybody else is stupid and wrong may be it is time to re-evaluate your belief. Hardly. There's plenty of valid criticisms of OO out there. However, that does not mean every criticism of OO is valid. Take this one, for instance: the author is complaining that OO is optimized for class inheritance, when it's not the normal case. However, plenty of OO languages don't have classes, or inheritance, and so it falls on its face as a criticism of OO. > If OOP were that good how come nobody made a killing with an implementation that would make these 'true Scotsman' folks happy. Because no OO implementation will make them happy. A little unsolicited worldly advice: programmers think themselves paragons of rationality, but they're susceptible to the same flow of fashion, and the same desire to believe ill of something they don't like, as everyone else. > other paradigms don't seem to need such pervasive apologism. They do—take a look at the comments when articles come out critical of functional programming, most of which are as good as the one under discussion here. Or when OO supplanted structural programming the first place.