2 ms·

I said two things: (1) class based programming isn't much different from plain old structured programming. (2) "OO" sucks. I did not however, said that OO suck

I said two things: (1) class based programming isn't much different from plain old structured programming. (2) "OO" sucks. I did not however, said that OO sucks. In pompous words, the quotation isn't the referent. http://lesswrong.com/lw/ok/the_quotation_is_not_the_referent/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/ok/the_quotation_is_not_the_referent... Also, my C code wasn't meant to be class based in C, only idiomatic C. That is my point: idiomatic C (which is procedural, structured) often strangely looks like class based code.

PaulHoule 16y ago
Sure. But the funny thing is that using an OO language shapes the way you use procedural languages. Owen Taylor, who worked in the same research group as me for a semester and who is one of the core developers of GTK, is somebody who believes (or used to believe) that "OO sucks" in the sense that they made a conscious decision to code GTK in straight C, not C++. That said, the actual organization of GTK is shaped by OO ideas. On the once in a blue moon that I write some C that isn't just simple procedure "glue code", my C coding style is heavily influenced by my OO experience, in the sense of how I name things and I frequently end up passing 'this' as the first arguments to functions. I think of the old C++ compilers that just outputted C code with mangled names... That's how I write C, except the names aren't so mangled.