4 ms·

It's amazing that so much excellent software has been written over the past few decades using object oriented programing, yet this guy seems to be utterly stymi

It's amazing that so much excellent software has been written over the past few decades using object oriented programing, yet this guy seems to be utterly stymied by it. Maybe OO isn't the problem.

smt88 9y ago
I agree excellent software has been written in OO. However, priorities change as industries, hardware, and programmers themselves change. I've found that OO is incredibly confusing to some people because there are many ways to do one thing. That can be a feature to some and a bug to others. I've also found that OO requires a level of discipline (e.g. SOLID) that's almost impossible to enforce. I've known companies who essentially have someone on the team whose full-time job is monitoring the code quality of the OO code base. I haven't observed the same thing in functional code bases (though my sample size is smaller).
- rhapsodic 9y ago
  >I've found that OO is incredibly confusing to some people because there are many ways to do one thing. That can be a feature to some and a bug to others. I've encountered such programmers. They're generally just mediocre programmers who don't put a lot of effort into upping their game. They typically don't find functional programming any easier. >I've also found that OO requires a level of discipline (e.g. SOLID) that's almost impossible to enforce. Enforcing SOLID categorically is a bad idea, period. And I think one of the worst things about OO is the copious dogma that has grown up around it. In that sense, you could say it's a victim of its own success.
some_account 9y ago
For me, OO doesn't create code that is easy to understand. It creates massive hierarchies of inheritance and this creates complexity. I would much rather look at a single function to figure out what it does rather than having to go look for how changes in it affects the hierarchy of classes.
- rhapsodic 9y ago
  >For me, OO doesn't create code that is easy to understand. It creates massive hierarchies of inheritance and this creates complexity. >I would much rather look at a single function to figure out what it does rather than having to go look for how changes in it affects the hierarchy of classes. I don't deny that there are many people like you in the programming world who struggle to understand things that many others have no trouble at all grokking. But my observation is that there are far more people like me, who don't struggle with understanding OO code. For decades, OO has been the dominant programming paradigm. And for decades, functional programming has been, as declared by many, on the cusp of taking over the world. And yet it never seems to happen.
  - warmfuzzykitten 9y ago
    You seem to be saying that you're much smarter than people who have a problem with object oriented programming. That's not only condescending, it's very unlikely to be true.
    - rhapsodic 9y ago
      >You seem to be saying that you're much smarter than people who have a problem with object oriented programming. That's not only condescending, it's very unlikely to be true. Whatever. I don't really care. The fact is, they, by their own admission, have difficulty with it, and I don't.
Arzh 9y ago
Yeah, reading it seems like they were using a lot of bad design decisions. I will give them credit that it might just be harder to make a good design in OO. I'm sure a lot of that comes from people's NEED to stick to DRY and other ideas so they get themselves into problems. I really like FP styles but I can't use FP languages because I just don't like the styling.

It's amazing that so much excellent software has been written over the past few decades using object oriented programing, yet this guy seems to be utterly stymied by it. Maybe OO isn't the problem.

smt88 9y ago

I agree excellent software has been written in OO. However, priorities change as industries, hardware, and programmers themselves change. I've found that OO is incredibly confusing to some people because there are many ways to do one thing. That can be a feature to some and a bug to others. I've also found that OO requires a level of discipline (e.g. SOLID) that's almost impossible to enforce. I've known companies who essentially have someone on the team whose full-time job is monitoring the code quality of the OO code base. I haven't observed the same thing in functional code bases (though my sample size is smaller).

rhapsodic 9y ago
>I've found that OO is incredibly confusing to some people because there are many ways to do one thing. That can be a feature to some and a bug to others. I've encountered such programmers. They're generally just mediocre programmers who don't put a lot of effort into upping their game. They typically don't find functional programming any easier. >I've also found that OO requires a level of discipline (e.g. SOLID) that's almost impossible to enforce. Enforcing SOLID categorically is a bad idea, period. And I think one of the worst things about OO is the copious dogma that has grown up around it. In that sense, you could say it's a victim of its own success.

some_account 9y ago

For me, OO doesn't create code that is easy to understand. It creates massive hierarchies of inheritance and this creates complexity. I would much rather look at a single function to figure out what it does rather than having to go look for how changes in it affects the hierarchy of classes.

rhapsodic 9y ago
>For me, OO doesn't create code that is easy to understand. It creates massive hierarchies of inheritance and this creates complexity. >I would much rather look at a single function to figure out what it does rather than having to go look for how changes in it affects the hierarchy of classes. I don't deny that there are many people like you in the programming world who struggle to understand things that many others have no trouble at all grokking. But my observation is that there are far more people like me, who don't struggle with understanding OO code. For decades, OO has been the dominant programming paradigm. And for decades, functional programming has been, as declared by many, on the cusp of taking over the world. And yet it never seems to happen.
- warmfuzzykitten 9y ago
  You seem to be saying that you're much smarter than people who have a problem with object oriented programming. That's not only condescending, it's very unlikely to be true.
  - rhapsodic 9y ago
    >You seem to be saying that you're much smarter than people who have a problem with object oriented programming. That's not only condescending, it's very unlikely to be true. Whatever. I don't really care. The fact is, they, by their own admission, have difficulty with it, and I don't.

Arzh 9y ago

Yeah, reading it seems like they were using a lot of bad design decisions. I will give them credit that it might just be harder to make a good design in OO. I'm sure a lot of that comes from people's NEED to stick to DRY and other ideas so they get themselves into problems. I really like FP styles but I can't use FP languages because I just don't like the styling.