3 ms·

"class-oriented" languages (such as java) attract such people. OOP seems to be "difficult", so there are lots of "tutorials" around that "teach" OOP by introdu

by cracki 16y ago

"class-oriented" languages (such as java) attract such people. OOP seems to be "difficult", so there are lots of "tutorials" around that "teach" OOP by introducing and combining all those brainless constructs, without teaching common sense. what you get is code monkeys who believe that this is decent source code. every code base should have at least one person dedicated to simplifying it and questioning every design decision, so all this "just in case" abstraction gets the knife.

jcromartie 16y ago
I think the problem is that OOP is just taught as a way to organize code. Pretty much everything in our ostensibly OO system could be static methods and it would work just fine. Objects rarely have instance variables, or if they do they are just used to set up a method call. Object lifetimes are measured in single-digit lines of code, and messaging between them is extremely rare. But that's what people have been taught.
- aphyr 16y ago
  I think you may be generalizing from a particular language culture to all OOP. This doesn't apply everywhere.
  - jcromartie 16y ago
    I'm talking about the kind of generic business app built in blub by a team of chair moisteners who don't know anything outside of the one language the project is written in. It could be Java (of course), C# (just about as likely), or VB (when they get the idea to use objects), or Python (yes, I've seen it).
preek 16y ago
Neither Python nor Ruby encourages this behaviour. Classes are clean and mean.
rbanffy 16y ago
OOP is not difficult. I learned OOP with Smalltalk and then went on to program with Actor on Windows 3 and lived happy until I decided to learn C++. I closed the book for 8 years because of what I saw: a parody of the simplicity and elegance of C. C++ could, as well, be a work of satire. OOP is only "difficult" if you try to learn it using a language that makes it difficult. Sadly, Java is one such language.

by cracki 16y ago

jcromartie 16y ago

I think the problem is that OOP is just taught as a way to organize code. Pretty much everything in our ostensibly OO system could be static methods and it would work just fine. Objects rarely have instance variables, or if they do they are just used to set up a method call. Object lifetimes are measured in single-digit lines of code, and messaging between them is extremely rare. But that's what people have been taught.

aphyr 16y ago
I think you may be generalizing from a particular language culture to all OOP. This doesn't apply everywhere.
- jcromartie 16y ago
  I'm talking about the kind of generic business app built in blub by a team of chair moisteners who don't know anything outside of the one language the project is written in. It could be Java (of course), C# (just about as likely), or VB (when they get the idea to use objects), or Python (yes, I've seen it).

preek 16y ago

Neither Python nor Ruby encourages this behaviour. Classes are clean and mean.

rbanffy 16y ago

OOP is not difficult. I learned OOP with Smalltalk and then went on to program with Actor on Windows 3 and lived happy until I decided to learn C++. I closed the book for 8 years because of what I saw: a parody of the simplicity and elegance of C. C++ could, as well, be a work of satire. OOP is only "difficult" if you try to learn it using a language that makes it difficult. Sadly, Java is one such language.