3 ms·

I've worked in projects that use OOP and projects that use procedural style and personally my brain seems to understand the OOP styled code much better than the

by Nr7 11y ago

I've worked in projects that use OOP and projects that use procedural style and personally my brain seems to understand the OOP styled code much better than the procedural stuff. Do I then go around calling other paradigms garbage just because my brain seems to function more in an Object Oriented way than other? Of course not. Do I think OOP is then automatically better than other because I understand it easier? Of course not. I stick to OOP because my dumb brain can't figure out other paradigms as well. Of course OOP is unnecessary since you don't need it to write good software. But one could argue that all paradigms are unnecessary since you could technically write any program using any paradigm. OOP, procedural, functional, whatever. My point is that people are different, use whatever you are most comfortable with. EDIT: Check Bob Burrough's comment to the youtube video. He worded it much better than me.

sklogic 11y ago
"Unnecessary" is the mildest of the OOP issues. A more common one is "damaging and destructive", and you cannot defend this one by simply saying that "my brain understands it better" - it won't magically become less damaging because of this. The truth is that OOP is in most cases the worst possible way to model the real world. There is always a much more adequate model (besides the single case I mentioned before). So, sticking to a paradigm that does not work at all is nothing but a religion and should be treated as such.
- bubuga 11y ago
  > A more common one is "damaging and destructive" That's a baseless assertion. Just because you developed a distaste for a particular programming paradigm it doesn't mean that your baseless assertions are suddenly sound. > So, sticking to a paradigm that does not work Somehow, the software world is founded on something that you somehow claim doesn't work. Perhaps you've taken your pet peeve a bit too far.
  - sklogic 11y ago
    > That's a baseless assertion. That's a verifiable fact. Take any OO code-base and it's very obvious how destructive the choice to use OO was, because there is always a much better model than OO. But of course you zealots are not even competent enough to comprehend such simple things.

by Nr7 11y ago

sklogic 11y ago

"Unnecessary" is the mildest of the OOP issues. A more common one is "damaging and destructive", and you cannot defend this one by simply saying that "my brain understands it better" - it won't magically become less damaging because of this. The truth is that OOP is in most cases the worst possible way to model the real world. There is always a much more adequate model (besides the single case I mentioned before). So, sticking to a paradigm that does not work at all is nothing but a religion and should be treated as such.

bubuga 11y ago
> A more common one is "damaging and destructive" That's a baseless assertion. Just because you developed a distaste for a particular programming paradigm it doesn't mean that your baseless assertions are suddenly sound. > So, sticking to a paradigm that does not work Somehow, the software world is founded on something that you somehow claim doesn't work. Perhaps you've taken your pet peeve a bit too far.
- sklogic 11y ago
  > That's a baseless assertion. That's a verifiable fact. Take any OO code-base and it's very obvious how destructive the choice to use OO was, because there is always a much better model than OO. But of course you zealots are not even competent enough to comprehend such simple things.