5 ms·

I can definitely state that OOP allows to implement GUI. But "great success" I can see only for vendors selling OOP tools for GUI development. Consider web fra

by fpoling 10y ago

I can definitely state that OOP allows to implement GUI. But "great success" I can see only for vendors selling OOP tools for GUI development. Consider web frameworks. Given a choice I select React and similar functional frameworks than OOP based ones. They are just more productive and scale better. Or consider QT. My colleagues with a lot of QT experience use QML to create GUI. They avoid any C++ GUI code unless it is really a must.

watwut 10y ago
React itself does much less then what component oriented oop frameworks used to do. Achieving same functionality with react is more work. They were not on the Web tho, so the comparison is a bit weird.
- zzzzzzzza 10y ago
  "achieving same functionality is more work" this is part of the advantage of react (and fp in general over oo). you don't need to incorporate an entire object to use a single extra function. The increased modularity also allows you to spread the maintenance burden of the project over a much larger community.
coldtea 10y ago
>Consider web frameworks. Given a choice I select React and similar functional frameworks than OOP based ones. They are just more productive and scale better. That's because there are no decent OO based web UIs, because the web development experience and stack is a total mess to begin with.
- Pxtl 10y ago
  The web UI objects, with their collection of global namespaces for IDs, Classes, JavaScript functions, etc., are aggressively resistant to compontentization. You can see the disastrous implications of this feature with the ID mangling needed for Asp.net webforms, and the utterly miserable workflow that creates.
- braveo 10y ago
  ASP.Net Web Controls was an attempt at bringing the desktop technologies like MFC to the web, and it was a horrible horrible idea. The worst part is that everything else about the original ASP.Net was mostly really good ... but Web Controls completely destroyed it's reputation.
ziotom78 10y ago
Well, I used to bash C++ and OOP programming till not a long time ago, but I am slowly reconsidering my ideas. I am now learning Rust, and for this purpose I am trying to implement a small TUI (Text User Interface) framework. In order to get some ideas, I dug in my library and found the Turbo Vision User's Manual that was bundled with Borland Pascal 7.0 [1]. Reading it after so many years made me wonder how could they create such a complex and well-thought framework that was truly usable for your own stuff, given the technology and knowledge available 30 years ago. The text often underlines that a lot of features were possible thanks to the OOP constructs implemented in Turbo Pascal, and I believe them. I think that OOP importance might have faded today, but its historical significance for the development of GUIs and TUIs should not be underestimated. P.S. I am trying to implement my library in Rust, which is not an OOP language, and so far have found no blocking point: traits and containers are more than adequate replacements for the kind of polymorphism and inheritance used in libraries like Turbo Vision. But my point still stands: once we learned that polymorphism and inheritance were useful to solve some specific problems, we have derived better ways to achieve the same purpose. [1] https://archive.org/details/bitsavers_borlandTurrogrammingGuide1992_25707423 https://archive.org/details/bitsavers_borlandTurrogrammingGu...
- mmjaa 10y ago
  Ex-Turbo Vision user here .. I continue to be disappointed by modern GUI technologies, by comparison. Every time I pick up some React tutorial, it makes me sad as hell that we've come so far, and yet have to deal with such errant crap as React and the Web itself as a whole. Its gotten so bad that I feel strongly about killing the browser-based ideology and just returning to native clients for everything .. I mean, its really not an easy decision to "do the whole GUI in Web", even though by now it should be. It just seems like such a mess by comparison with where we should be by now, given the work done decades ago ..

by fpoling 10y ago

watwut 10y ago

React itself does much less then what component oriented oop frameworks used to do. Achieving same functionality with react is more work. They were not on the Web tho, so the comparison is a bit weird.

zzzzzzzza 10y ago
"achieving same functionality is more work" this is part of the advantage of react (and fp in general over oo). you don't need to incorporate an entire object to use a single extra function. The increased modularity also allows you to spread the maintenance burden of the project over a much larger community.

coldtea 10y ago

>Consider web frameworks. Given a choice I select React and similar functional frameworks than OOP based ones. They are just more productive and scale better. That's because there are no decent OO based web UIs, because the web development experience and stack is a total mess to begin with.

Pxtl 10y ago
The web UI objects, with their collection of global namespaces for IDs, Classes, JavaScript functions, etc., are aggressively resistant to compontentization. You can see the disastrous implications of this feature with the ID mangling needed for Asp.net webforms, and the utterly miserable workflow that creates.
braveo 10y ago
ASP.Net Web Controls was an attempt at bringing the desktop technologies like MFC to the web, and it was a horrible horrible idea. The worst part is that everything else about the original ASP.Net was mostly really good ... but Web Controls completely destroyed it's reputation.

ziotom78 10y ago

Well, I used to bash C++ and OOP programming till not a long time ago, but I am slowly reconsidering my ideas. I am now learning Rust, and for this purpose I am trying to implement a small TUI (Text User Interface) framework. In order to get some ideas, I dug in my library and found the Turbo Vision User's Manual that was bundled with Borland Pascal 7.0 [1]. Reading it after so many years made me wonder how could they create such a complex and well-thought framework that was truly usable for your own stuff, given the technology and knowledge available 30 years ago. The text often underlines that a lot of features were possible thanks to the OOP constructs implemented in Turbo Pascal, and I believe them. I think that OOP importance might have faded today, but its historical significance for the development of GUIs and TUIs should not be underestimated. P.S. I am trying to implement my library in Rust, which is not an OOP language, and so far have found no blocking point: traits and containers are more than adequate replacements for the kind of polymorphism and inheritance used in libraries like Turbo Vision. But my point still stands: once we learned that polymorphism and inheritance were useful to solve some specific problems, we have derived better ways to achieve the same purpose. [1] https://archive.org/details/bitsavers_borlandTurrogrammingGuide1992_25707423 https://archive.org/details/bitsavers_borlandTurrogrammingGu...

mmjaa 10y ago
Ex-Turbo Vision user here .. I continue to be disappointed by modern GUI technologies, by comparison. Every time I pick up some React tutorial, it makes me sad as hell that we've come so far, and yet have to deal with such errant crap as React and the Web itself as a whole. Its gotten so bad that I feel strongly about killing the browser-based ideology and just returning to native clients for everything .. I mean, its really not an easy decision to "do the whole GUI in Web", even though by now it should be. It just seems like such a mess by comparison with where we should be by now, given the work done decades ago ..