3 ms·

> There’s no objective and open evidence that OOP is better than plain procedural programming. Really depends on what is your definition of "OOP" here > Both

> There’s no objective and open evidence that OOP is better than plain procedural programming. Really depends on what is your definition of "OOP" here > Both Smalltalk and Erlang make use of OOP the way it was originally intended by its inventor, Alan Kay. ah, the bad definition of OOP then. Hint : most C apis that look like foo* foo_create(void); int foo_get_bananas(foo*); void foo_print(foo*, int, int); void foo_free(foo**); are OOP, not procedural. They just lack the syntax sugar. > Linus Torvalds is widely known for his open criticism of C++ and OOP. yet he went on doing C++ for user-space code : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON0A1dsQOV0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON0A1dsQOV0 > Some might disagree with me, but the truth is that modern OOP has never been properly designed. It never came out of a proper research institution as someone who did a phd in a "proper research institution", that's a completely bullshit criterion. > OOP doesn’t have decades of rigorous scientific research to back it up oh come on https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=object-oriented https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=object-oriented

0815test 7y ago
>are OOP, not procedural. They just lack the syntax sugar. ADT's/"Object-based" programming (which is what you show above) is not the issue. The biggest problems occur when you introduce non-trivial inheritance/polymorphism.
eska 7y ago
> Really depends on what is your definition of "OOP" here I smell a no-true-scotsman incoming.. >> Both Smalltalk and Erlang make use of OOP the way it was originally intended by its inventor, Alan Kay. > ah, the bad definition of OOP then. Message-based OOP is usually considered to be superior to inheritance by even OOP advocates, and even composition-based OOP by many. I don't see your evidence for "bad definition of OOP". >Hint : most C apis that look like > foo* foo_create(void); > int foo_get_bananas(foo); > void foo_print(foo, int, int); > void foo_free(foo); > > are OOP, not procedural. They just lack the syntax sugar. Not every API that uses a struct is OOP. If your foos use inheritance, virtual dispatch etc, then yes it's OOP. But usually it's just something like a struct to store state instead of having globals or multiple parameters even. >> Linus Torvalds is widely known for his open criticism of C++ and OOP. > yet he went on doing C++ for user-space code : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON0A1dsQOV0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON0A1dsQOV0 He's a pragmatist first and foremost, and the GUI libraries he uses (Qt) and the programmers that work on GUI code use C++, he said. I doubt he would write his own GUI framework in C++.

0815test 7y ago

>are OOP, not procedural. They just lack the syntax sugar. ADT's/"Object-based" programming (which is what you show above) is not the issue. The biggest problems occur when you introduce non-trivial inheritance/polymorphism.

eska 7y ago

> Really depends on what is your definition of "OOP" here I smell a no-true-scotsman incoming.. >> Both Smalltalk and Erlang make use of OOP the way it was originally intended by its inventor, Alan Kay. > ah, the bad definition of OOP then. Message-based OOP is usually considered to be superior to inheritance by even OOP advocates, and even composition-based OOP by many. I don't see your evidence for "bad definition of OOP". >Hint : most C apis that look like > foo* foo_create(void); > int foo_get_bananas(foo); > void foo_print(foo, int, int); > void foo_free(foo); > > are OOP, not procedural. They just lack the syntax sugar. Not every API that uses a struct is OOP. If your foos use inheritance, virtual dispatch etc, then yes it's OOP. But usually it's just something like a struct to store state instead of having globals or multiple parameters even. >> Linus Torvalds is widely known for his open criticism of C++ and OOP. > yet he went on doing C++ for user-space code : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON0A1dsQOV0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON0A1dsQOV0 He's a pragmatist first and foremost, and the GUI libraries he uses (Qt) and the programmers that work on GUI code use C++, he said. I doubt he would write his own GUI framework in C++.