5 ms·

If you have an implicit interface then you are implicitly doing OOP. You may be intelligently eschewing the worst parts of so-called OO languages (too much stat

If you have an implicit interface then you are implicitly doing OOP. You may be intelligently eschewing the worst parts of so-called OO languages (too much statefulness, and inheritance), but by using the best concepts of OOP you're demonstrating how great OOP can be when really done right. I will point you to this interview where Joe Armstrong describes Erlang as perhaps the only Object Oriented language (countering his earlier, less considered view that OO sucks): https://www.infoq.com/interviews/johnson-armstrong-oop https://www.infoq.com/interviews/johnson-armstrong-oop

joshribakoff 9y ago
I disagree. Just because your code has an interface doesn't make it OOP. If your functions are stateless yes they have an interface but that's not really OOP which is usually defined as scoped data bound with behavior. A bunch of static classes aren't OOP either, they may be using classes, but the state is global so it's not OOP. Interfaces are just one aspect of OOP and the concept of interfaces existed long before OOP and is used in other programming paradigms. An imperative program can have an interface too.
rpedela 9y ago
> If you have an implicit interface then you are implicitly doing OOP. Are you saying that having a set of functions is an implicit interface and therefore every program ever written that contains a set of functions is implicitly doing OOP?
- solipsism 9y ago
  We are talking explicitly about an interface allowing an implementation that can be swapped out for testing. Not every program ever written is organized like this, but those that are are making use of polymorphism and therefore a bit of OOP.
  - rpedela 9y ago
    Thank you for adding some nuance. So then would OpenGL be an OOP API?
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    Polymorphism is not OOP, although OOP designs may be polymorphic. Many FP approaches leverage polymorphic functions heavily (and in fact in most they use a parametric style of polymorphism which provides a lot more structure than the OO-family ad-hoc polymorphism).

joshribakoff 9y ago

I disagree. Just because your code has an interface doesn't make it OOP. If your functions are stateless yes they have an interface but that's not really OOP which is usually defined as scoped data bound with behavior. A bunch of static classes aren't OOP either, they may be using classes, but the state is global so it's not OOP. Interfaces are just one aspect of OOP and the concept of interfaces existed long before OOP and is used in other programming paradigms. An imperative program can have an interface too.

rpedela 9y ago

> If you have an implicit interface then you are implicitly doing OOP. Are you saying that having a set of functions is an implicit interface and therefore every program ever written that contains a set of functions is implicitly doing OOP?

solipsism 9y ago
We are talking explicitly about an interface allowing an implementation that can be swapped out for testing. Not every program ever written is organized like this, but those that are are making use of polymorphism and therefore a bit of OOP.
- rpedela 9y ago
  Thank you for adding some nuance. So then would OpenGL be an OOP API?
- KirinDave 9y ago
  Polymorphism is not OOP, although OOP designs may be polymorphic. Many FP approaches leverage polymorphic functions heavily (and in fact in most they use a parametric style of polymorphism which provides a lot more structure than the OO-family ad-hoc polymorphism).