2 ms·

> I think this is a fundamental error since functions and data structures belong in totally different worlds. This is my biggest issue with the article. Blurr

• russellbeattie 7y ago
  That's an interesting observation, however this discussion is at an abstraction level far removed from those basic concepts. No one is arguing whether OOP can be compiled into logic instructions that are better or worse than some other programming paradigm, we've got that figured out. We know how to convert just about any system of organizing data and functions into the billions of individual transactions that a CPU has to make to execute that program. Copying a byte value from one place into a register, interpreting another byte as an instruction and the next byte as the address for the result and the next as a hardware switch... These are the concepts Turing and Von Neumann figured out, but they're irrelevant to the modern day question of how to organize thousands or millions of lines of code to minimize errors and maximize understanding and efficiency. In fact, the OOP question isn't as much about science and technology as it is a social question concerning the best way to organize logic and information as a profession. What's the best way to make sure programmers don't screw things up? Is it to make sure the most incompetent developer can be somewhat productive with simple concepts, or are those simplified concepts inherently flawed? Or is it somewhere in the middle?