3 ms·
I could take that text more seriously if it at least discussed the limitations of the most powerful embodiments of OOP that we have today and not the accidental
by jakub_h 11y ago
I could take that text more seriously if it at least discussed the limitations of the most powerful embodiments of OOP that we have today and not the accidental limitations of languages that for one reason or the other ended up not as good as they could have and force you to jump through hoops, as evidenced by the very mentions of classes, constructors, private methods etc., none of which are fundamental to OOP but all of which were made fundamental to certain languages.
- hcarvalhoalves 11y agoI agree, but OTH you can be a Platonist and refute every criticism with this argument. In the end the OOP you have is the OOP that has been implemented, so judging the implementations we have to work on is more down to earth.
- jakub_h 11y agoTrue. But when it comes to learning the basics of programming, you can always pick better languages. There doesn't appear to a shortage of pedagogically useful ones.