4 ms·

My personal anecdotal experience is that OOP lends itself well to very very large codebases. A language like java with packaging, classes, and encapsulation st

My personal anecdotal experience is that OOP lends itself well to very very large codebases. A language like java with packaging, classes, and encapsulation strongly encourages some meaningful organization. Even if that organization is implemented poorly by the user, it's better than what I have seen users create in the real world with languages like C. If you have a project where a single person could reasonably understand all the components then maybe OOP is overkill. I also recognize others may have had an equal and opposite experience.

ilovecaching 8y ago
Have you tried something with typeclasses, ADTs, or some form of interfaces? C really doesn't provide any tools to make abstractions and lacks the basics, like namespaces. My experience with OOP is that it generally drives people to very large codebases that are hard to reason about at scale. Usually it brings in a framework of some sort to manage the complexity of wiring objects together in a manageable way. For example, Java Spring uses annotations to magically wire objects together.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
josephg 8y ago
I was a programming teacher some years ago and I would sometimes grade two submissions, which had both gotten full marks from the automated tests but where one was 150 loc and the other 500 loc. The most surprising part was that if I read the longer submission first, it would never really seem like there was that much excess code to take away. But obviously there was. > My personal anecdotal experience is that OOP lends itself well to very very large codebases. In my experience Java / C++ style OOP creates very very large codebases in the same way. I think its quite surprising that many engineers don't seem to have any idea how much waste there is in their "clean" java code. (Or C++ that follows the same style). I also almost always find it far easier to read dataflow oriented code or functional code compared to their OO counterparts because all the state transitions are made absolutely clear. In OOP, your system state is spread across every file in the project. Compare to, say, a website implemented using React/Redux. I can inspect a single object to see the entire state of the application. When there's a bug, usually either that object has the wrong value (so I know how to fix it). Or the object has the right value and the bug is in the rendered component. Easy peasy. In comparison, in a java program the bugs often show up between classes. They end up relating to the relative timing of function calls that mutate state. Or the lifecycle of objects conflicting in weird ways. Its much worse for comprehension and much more work to debug. (And yes, I've spent years working in both styles professionally.)
- ilovecaching 8y ago
  We came to the same conclusion! Hidden state does make debugging difficult. Glad to hear our data points corroborate.
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  I have a hard time getting on board with the "waste" or loc argument. The things that matter most to me are readability, organization, maintainability, etc. If the structure that provides those things results in there being more lines of code, or more "waste" then that's a price I'm happy to pay. The context you describe being a teacher is exactly the kind of case I was suggesting OOP may not be beneficial. If you're in a programming class you are generally not maintaining code bases with millions upon millions of lines of code. In that case, in a case where a single person is likely capable of understanding the entire code base, OOP probably isn't bringing any serious benefits.
  - badestrand 8y ago
    > I have a hard time getting on board with the "waste" or loc argument. . The things that matter most to me are readability, organization, maintainability, etc I think people also have different ideas on readability. Some prefer a single file with 2k lines and some prefer 40 small files in 12 folders with 50 lines each. Like the parent says you can often write the same code in 4x length, be it to prepare for future features or just to have it look "clean". "Good code" is different for different people.
    - josephg 8y ago
      Maybe. I suspect most people who say they prefer the java style are simply wrong. I don't think they've spun up on enough new projects to notice the extra weight that increased size and scale brings. Or they're assuming that the extra complexity is all necessary, and they're mistaken the same way I was while grading those assignments. (Aside: Isn't it super weird how reading code is so rarely encouraged at school?) I suspect you could objectively measure this - take two implementations of the same problem; one small and one large but where the implementations do the same thing. For example, write a simple website using a stateful OO style. Then write the equivalent code using the mostly stateless react component style. The latter would be functionally equivalent, while using less code. The latter would also use much less local hidden state. Then measure how long it takes new people to start making meaningful changes to the two respective codebases. I don't think its a matter of opinion or preference. I expect that the functional component model would come out as a clear productivity winner. The easiest code to change is code you never needed to write in the first place.

ilovecaching 8y ago

Have you tried something with typeclasses, ADTs, or some form of interfaces? C really doesn't provide any tools to make abstractions and lacks the basics, like namespaces. My experience with OOP is that it generally drives people to very large codebases that are hard to reason about at scale. Usually it brings in a framework of some sort to manage the complexity of wiring objects together in a manageable way. For example, Java Spring uses annotations to magically wire objects together.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

josephg 8y ago

I was a programming teacher some years ago and I would sometimes grade two submissions, which had both gotten full marks from the automated tests but where one was 150 loc and the other 500 loc. The most surprising part was that if I read the longer submission first, it would never really seem like there was that much excess code to take away. But obviously there was. > My personal anecdotal experience is that OOP lends itself well to very very large codebases. In my experience Java / C++ style OOP creates very very large codebases in the same way. I think its quite surprising that many engineers don't seem to have any idea how much waste there is in their "clean" java code. (Or C++ that follows the same style). I also almost always find it far easier to read dataflow oriented code or functional code compared to their OO counterparts because all the state transitions are made absolutely clear. In OOP, your system state is spread across every file in the project. Compare to, say, a website implemented using React/Redux. I can inspect a single object to see the entire state of the application. When there's a bug, usually either that object has the wrong value (so I know how to fix it). Or the object has the right value and the bug is in the rendered component. Easy peasy. In comparison, in a java program the bugs often show up between classes. They end up relating to the relative timing of function calls that mutate state. Or the lifecycle of objects conflicting in weird ways. Its much worse for comprehension and much more work to debug. (And yes, I've spent years working in both styles professionally.)

ilovecaching 8y ago
We came to the same conclusion! Hidden state does make debugging difficult. Glad to hear our data points corroborate.
Consultant32452 8y ago
I have a hard time getting on board with the "waste" or loc argument. The things that matter most to me are readability, organization, maintainability, etc. If the structure that provides those things results in there being more lines of code, or more "waste" then that's a price I'm happy to pay. The context you describe being a teacher is exactly the kind of case I was suggesting OOP may not be beneficial. If you're in a programming class you are generally not maintaining code bases with millions upon millions of lines of code. In that case, in a case where a single person is likely capable of understanding the entire code base, OOP probably isn't bringing any serious benefits.
- badestrand 8y ago
  > I have a hard time getting on board with the "waste" or loc argument. . The things that matter most to me are readability, organization, maintainability, etc I think people also have different ideas on readability. Some prefer a single file with 2k lines and some prefer 40 small files in 12 folders with 50 lines each. Like the parent says you can often write the same code in 4x length, be it to prepare for future features or just to have it look "clean". "Good code" is different for different people.
  - josephg 8y ago
    Maybe. I suspect most people who say they prefer the java style are simply wrong. I don't think they've spun up on enough new projects to notice the extra weight that increased size and scale brings. Or they're assuming that the extra complexity is all necessary, and they're mistaken the same way I was while grading those assignments. (Aside: Isn't it super weird how reading code is so rarely encouraged at school?) I suspect you could objectively measure this - take two implementations of the same problem; one small and one large but where the implementations do the same thing. For example, write a simple website using a stateful OO style. Then write the equivalent code using the mostly stateless react component style. The latter would be functionally equivalent, while using less code. The latter would also use much less local hidden state. Then measure how long it takes new people to start making meaningful changes to the two respective codebases. I don't think its a matter of opinion or preference. I expect that the functional component model would come out as a clear productivity winner. The easiest code to change is code you never needed to write in the first place.