4 ms·

Because, as it has been said countless [1] times before, 1. OOP is technically unsound 2. OOP is philosophically unsound 3. OOP is methodologically wrong 4.

Because, as it has been said countless [1] times before, 1. OOP is technically unsound 2. OOP is philosophically unsound 3. OOP is methodologically wrong 4. OOP is a hoax [1] http://www.stlport.org/resources/StepanovUSA.html http://www.stlport.org/resources/StepanovUSA.html

nec4b 7y ago
And yet most of software for quite some time was/is written in OOP languages.
- enriquto 7y ago
  A real tragedy of our time.
  - nec4b 7y ago
    In what way? What do you believe would change if all that software was written in a perfect language of you choice?
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
"Countless times", but you give one reference that has one paragraph that contains those bullets, with only a one-or-two-sentence justification for each (except the last, which is given no justification at all, just as an opinion). That's not much to back up your claims, even if it is Stepanov. And even on "methodologically wrong", Stepanov's rationale is wrong. After programming in various languages for decades, to use his analogy, we had "proofs". Then the "axioms" of OOP were laid down. Note also that Stepanov says that generic programming is for him the only possible way to program. I suspect (possibly wrongly?) that you adopt his criticism of OOP, but not the rest of his rather dogmatic statements.