7 ms·

OOP did more to set back program design than anything else I can think of. It was incredibly wrong, has sent so many smart minds down a poor path. If for exampl

OOP did more to set back program design than anything else I can think of. It was incredibly wrong, has sent so many smart minds down a poor path. If for example functional has taken prominence in the 90s we'd be in a much better place now.

B4TMAN 9y ago
I have been learning OO design and I would like to see what functional programming has to offer. Where do I begin?
maxxxxx 9y ago
OO was a huge improvement in the 90s. But as with a lot of paradigms it got elevated to a religion and way overused. I still don't understand why a lot of teaching emphasizes inheritance. The same would have happened with FP. People would have messed it up too.
- tome 9y ago
  But without inheritance what actually is OOP? Haskell has typeclasses. Rust has traits. Is there anything they lack before one could call programming in Haskell or Rust OOP?
skrebbel 9y ago
Fad X did more to set back program design than anything else I can think of. It was incredibly wrong, has sent so many smart minds down a poor path. If for example Fad Y has taken prominence in the 90s we'd be in a much better place now.
- quickthrower2 9y ago
  Works with FadX = Waterfall & FadY = Agile, and vice versa.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  Exactly!
MarkMc 9y ago
I have the polar opposite view. I love OOP because it provides a way to elegantly solve so many problems. To take a concrete example, consider the undo-redo mechanism in a text editor. It seems natural to create a list of objects with each object representing the action that can be undone or redone, and a pointer to the most recent action object. Undoing executes the 'undo' method and moves the pointer to the previous action. Redoing moves the pointer to the next action and calls it's 'redo' method. You would have a 'delete text' type of action which knows how to remove a particular chunk of text and put it back. You would have a 'change text colour' action which knows how to change text to a particular colour and revert back. You might have an 'insert jpeg' action which knows how to add a picture and remove it from the document. Crucially, each action object in the list should encapsulate it's data and behaviour. It makes the undo-redo framework so much simpler if the framework knows nothing about each type of action, besides the fact that each action object has some kind of undo and redo behaviour. I cannot see how you could get a simpler design without OO principles such as coupling the data and methods of each type of action, or without hiding the implementation details of each action from the undo-redo framework.
- willtim 9y ago
  The fundamental feature that makes such an example easy is first-class functions. You are simply using objects to encode this and not making any use of their identify and mutable state.
  - jcelerier 9y ago
    > You are simply using objects to encode this and not making any use of their identify and mutable state. Most software with undo-redo will show you some metadata related to the action (for instance "Undo 'Drag stuff'", "Redo 'Set text in bold'"...) so you have to have a way to associate metadata with the "undo / redo" functions; the class is a good tool for this. Also, a common optimization is to alter the head of the stack instead of deleting / creating new commands when for instance you are moving an object in the GUI. e.g. say you have a command that moves a box at a specific position. If command objects are immutable, every time the mouse moves, you have to pop the head of your stack and push a new command instead (which may be a waste of resources); instead you can just have an "update" method which will change the position stored inside the command which is microscopic in comparison of malloc / free.
tanilama 9y ago
> set back program design No one stops you writing program in whatever style you want. If functional programming has that of edge over OO, it would win over the argument long ago. I don't like you assume other people don't know what is best for themselves, and needs some top-down expert to light the path. You argument, if there is one, sounds really preachy and proves no other than the point that support of functional programming here in HN are more about identity politics than actually making it useful to the crowd.
- BoiledCabbage 9y ago
  > I don't like you assume other people don't know what is best for themselves, and needs some top-down expert to light the path. I do love the juxtaposition of this line, with your following accusation of people on HN engaging in "identity politics". In my view the argument "X can't be better than Y, otherwise we'd all be using X". Is wrong for the same reason that "K can't be a good idea for a company to start otherwise someone would've started it already." Some things are too early, some things are marketed poorly, sometimes it's luck, some times is dedication in sticking with it. I strongly believe that markets aren't efficient and have lots of imbalances. I also strongly believe that life isn't efficient and has lots of imbalances.
tome 9y ago
Poe's law strikes again!
pjmlp 9y ago
You mean the functional path from Lisp with CLOS and FLAVORS?

B4TMAN 9y ago

I have been learning OO design and I would like to see what functional programming has to offer. Where do I begin?

maxxxxx 9y ago

OO was a huge improvement in the 90s. But as with a lot of paradigms it got elevated to a religion and way overused. I still don't understand why a lot of teaching emphasizes inheritance. The same would have happened with FP. People would have messed it up too.

tome 9y ago
But without inheritance what actually is OOP? Haskell has typeclasses. Rust has traits. Is there anything they lack before one could call programming in Haskell or Rust OOP?

skrebbel 9y ago

Fad X did more to set back program design than anything else I can think of. It was incredibly wrong, has sent so many smart minds down a poor path. If for example Fad Y has taken prominence in the 90s we'd be in a much better place now.

quickthrower2 9y ago
Works with FadX = Waterfall & FadY = Agile, and vice versa.
maxxxxx 9y ago
Exactly!

MarkMc 9y ago

I have the polar opposite view. I love OOP because it provides a way to elegantly solve so many problems. To take a concrete example, consider the undo-redo mechanism in a text editor. It seems natural to create a list of objects with each object representing the action that can be undone or redone, and a pointer to the most recent action object. Undoing executes the 'undo' method and moves the pointer to the previous action. Redoing moves the pointer to the next action and calls it's 'redo' method. You would have a 'delete text' type of action which knows how to remove a particular chunk of text and put it back. You would have a 'change text colour' action which knows how to change text to a particular colour and revert back. You might have an 'insert jpeg' action which knows how to add a picture and remove it from the document. Crucially, each action object in the list should encapsulate it's data and behaviour. It makes the undo-redo framework so much simpler if the framework knows nothing about each type of action, besides the fact that each action object has some kind of undo and redo behaviour. I cannot see how you could get a simpler design without OO principles such as coupling the data and methods of each type of action, or without hiding the implementation details of each action from the undo-redo framework.

willtim 9y ago
The fundamental feature that makes such an example easy is first-class functions. You are simply using objects to encode this and not making any use of their identify and mutable state.
- jcelerier 9y ago
  > You are simply using objects to encode this and not making any use of their identify and mutable state. Most software with undo-redo will show you some metadata related to the action (for instance "Undo 'Drag stuff'", "Redo 'Set text in bold'"...) so you have to have a way to associate metadata with the "undo / redo" functions; the class is a good tool for this. Also, a common optimization is to alter the head of the stack instead of deleting / creating new commands when for instance you are moving an object in the GUI. e.g. say you have a command that moves a box at a specific position. If command objects are immutable, every time the mouse moves, you have to pop the head of your stack and push a new command instead (which may be a waste of resources); instead you can just have an "update" method which will change the position stored inside the command which is microscopic in comparison of malloc / free.

tanilama 9y ago

> set back program design No one stops you writing program in whatever style you want. If functional programming has that of edge over OO, it would win over the argument long ago. I don't like you assume other people don't know what is best for themselves, and needs some top-down expert to light the path. You argument, if there is one, sounds really preachy and proves no other than the point that support of functional programming here in HN are more about identity politics than actually making it useful to the crowd.

BoiledCabbage 9y ago
> I don't like you assume other people don't know what is best for themselves, and needs some top-down expert to light the path. I do love the juxtaposition of this line, with your following accusation of people on HN engaging in "identity politics". In my view the argument "X can't be better than Y, otherwise we'd all be using X". Is wrong for the same reason that "K can't be a good idea for a company to start otherwise someone would've started it already." Some things are too early, some things are marketed poorly, sometimes it's luck, some times is dedication in sticking with it. I strongly believe that markets aren't efficient and have lots of imbalances. I also strongly believe that life isn't efficient and has lots of imbalances.

tome 9y ago

Poe's law strikes again!

pjmlp 9y ago

You mean the functional path from Lisp with CLOS and FLAVORS?