4 ms·
"I find OOP methodologically wrong. It starts with classes. It is as if mathematicians would start with axioms. You do not start with axioms - you start with pr
by codr4life 10y ago
"I find OOP methodologically wrong. It starts with classes. It is as if mathematicians would start with axioms. You do not start with axioms - you start with proofs. Only when you have found a bunch of related proofs, can you come up with axioms. You end with axioms. The same thing is true in programming: you have to start with interesting algorithms. Only when you understand them well, can you come up with an interface that will let them work."
A. Stepanov (http://www.stlport.org/resources/StepanovUSA.html http://www.stlport.org/resources/StepanovUSA.html)
- keithnz 10y agoI think this is more based on the early methodology advice for developing OO software. But the methodology is independent of the constructs (though often limited by it). In practice these days often the most effective way when developing OO code is working the "proofs" till you have a set of classes. Also, some people go for very FP inspired OO code.
- codr4life 10y agoThose are clearly exceptions to the rule, though. You can write sort of Haskell in any language, OOP is still bullshit.
- romwell 10y agoAs a side note, this is a very true statement about mathematics, which, unfortunately, doesn't hold for a plethora of texts (from elementary to the graduate level) which do, in fact, start with axioms. To that end, even starting with definitions is often harmful when the definitions themselves are so often tailored to make a particular proof work, and make no sense without such context.