3 ms·
"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
by 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.