3 ms·
What you're talking about is just better code organisation and modularity. It's a shame it is always brought up in defence of the useless OO, as if modularity i
by sklogic 11y ago
What you're talking about is just better code organisation and modularity. It's a shame it is always brought up in defence of the useless OO, as if modularity is an exclusive OO property and not a mere side effect of it.
- bubuga 11y ago> as if modularity is an exclusive OO property and not a mere side effect of it. Modularity isn't a mere "site effect" of OO: it's one of the main motivation factors that have lead to OO. In fact, the main problem with these anti-OO rants made by procedural purists is that in essence they all boil down to claiming that basic OO features that are a part of any OO language can be reimplemented in procedural languages.
- sklogic 11y ago> it's one of the main motivation factors that have lead to OO. OO got no rights whatsoever to highjack the benefits of the modules. There are some very successful module systems that got absolutely nothing to do with any OO bullshit.
- bubuga 11y ago> OO got no rights whatsoever to highjack the benefits of the modules. You're the only one who's trying to make that assertion. It's a strawman, and a poor one at that.
- sklogic 11y agoNo it is you and the other zealots who are praising OO for something it got absolutely nothing to do with. When someone is claiming that OO leads to a better maintainability of a large code base it's just a shameless lie. Modules are responsible for this, not anything OO.