3 ms·
Of course there's innate complexity, but pursuing encapsulation for its own sake adds complexity you don't need (just like using functional programming techniqu
by Tloewald 11y ago
Of course there's innate complexity, but pursuing encapsulation for its own sake adds complexity you don't need (just like using functional programming techniques for intrinsically non-functional use-cases adds complexity for no good reason).
Again, "messages", "objects", etc. -- these are metaphors. They should be abandoned as soon as they stop being helpful.
- Retric 11y agoGenerally, if you don't want encapsulation then your not dealing with an independent object. You could write a game using 2 objects or 2,000, but building complex systems without partitioning becomes incredibly difficult. At the core Objects are a very basic abstraction. It can be as basic as Simulation <-> Rendering, but it's hard to point to a complex system and say this really is best represented by a big ball of mud. So, sure not everything should be an object. But, saying nothing should be is a much higher hurdle than that.
- Tloewald 11y agoOf course, but this guy is saying nothing shouldn't be, which is an even higher hurdle.