3 ms·

Do you mean that in order to allow green programmers to change big codebases you make the code more complex? I honestly don't understand.

• gerbilly 8y ago
  Sorry not quite, I believe that people use OOP in enterprise settings perhaps thinking: * Encapsulation might make it safer for programmers to modify code without affecting other areas. * Inheritance will make it easier to set standards for large numbers of high turnover programmers. and that then it grows complex for various mostly social factors. The testable hypothesis in this is that if you started with another programming model, and applied the same social pressures to it, it would end up just as ugly and complex. These codebases have hordes of programmers banging away on them, with little regard for the bigger picture which makes the code ugly and inconsistent.[1] Architects then react to this and attempt to enforce standards by introducing patterns and subclasses and facades etc, which is what makes it complex. Basically, I'm saying that the main straw-man used to argue against OOP: the enterprise codebase is chosen for the wrong reasons. Put any other programming style under the same pressures and you'll end up with a similar big ball of mud. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons