2 ms·
> However, I do agree with the conclusion. For web-based programming, object oriented programming is simply ridiculous in all but a small number of cases. I re
by jcromartie 18y ago
> However, I do agree with the conclusion. For web-based programming, object oriented programming is simply ridiculous in all but a small number of cases.
I read his conclusion as that object oriented programming has failed us because it is too hard to understand, and we need a new, simpler, more accessible, dumbed-down programming paradigm. He is advocating programming for non-programmers, which has been tried many times before and has always met the worst kind of failure (universal disdain by "real" programmers).
- jimbokun 18y agoI would say we've had it for a while now. Ever seen the things that people on a trading desk do with Excel? Or maybe VB, when they get daring. Generally something that gets the job done that they want it do. However, it is not going to be very extensible, no one besides the person who wrote it will be able to understand it (and maybe not even him), they will have no idea what to do if they want it to go faster, or if they need to make it work on the web, or integrate some data feed that doesn't have any easy way to import into Excel, or... In summary, we have programming for non-programmers, it works as well as can be expected, but sometimes you really, really need a programmer.