6 ms·

I fear the goalposts have moved from "the problem with OOP" to "the problem with mutability". These are distinct concepts. The fundamental premise of OOP is, am

I fear the goalposts have moved from "the problem with OOP" to "the problem with mutability". These are distinct concepts. The fundamental premise of OOP is, among other things, the encapsulation of behavior _with_ data (as opposed to _around_ data). It has nothing to do with mutability. One can absolutely practice OOP with immutability (looking at Scala here). Similarly, OOP doesn't need to be written imperatively. Are you suggesting `sorted_people = people.sort()` isn't OOP? You are building your own concept of OOP to argue against, not the one that exists in reality. (straw-man emoji)

crimsonalucard 7y ago
>I fear the goalposts have moved from "the problem with OOP" to "the problem with mutability". These are distinct concepts. No they ARE not. For OOP to work you have to have objects be mute-able. The modern definition of OOP are nodes that communicate with each other and change each others state. The minute you get rid of mute-ability is the minute you are doing functional programming. >One can absolutely practice OOP with immutability (looking at Scala here). Scala is a multi-paradigm language. Also scala is not always immutable. The objects in scala can mutate. >Similarly, OOP doesn't need to be written imperatively. It does if you want the properties of an object to change. That is the dichotomy of OOP and FP otherwise there is no dichotomy and no point for there to exist vocabulary to separate the two concepts. >Are you suggesting `sorted_people = people.sort()` isn't OOP? If I remove the engine from my car and roll it down a hill while in the drivers seat am I still driving the car? Yes. Technically I am. But key feature of the engine moving the car is missing. You can call people.sort() OOP you can also call it not OOP because it is missing the key feature of self modification. >You are building your own concept of OOP to argue against, not the one that exists in reality. lol lets look at the definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming I directly quote from the site above: "Object-oriented programming (OOP) is a programming paradigm based on the concept of "objects", which can contain data, in the form of fields (often known as attributes or properties), and code, in the form of procedures (often known as methods). A feature of objects is an object's procedures that can access and often modify the data fields of the object with which they are associated (objects have a notion of "this" or "self"). In OOP, computer programs are designed by making them out of objects that interact with one another." Key sentence above: "A feature of objects is an object's procedures that can access and often modify the data fields of the object with which they are associated" The goal post was never moved. It was set by the Actual definition of OOP. I am explicitly including this feature to make sure that ALL we are dealing with is OOP and not some hybrid functional or OOP merger. >(straw-man emoji) This mechanism of turning macros into emojis doesn't work here on HN! Similar to your arguments.
- kingdomcome50 7y ago
  The quoted text above is referring to objects, not OOP -- which encompasses a number of concepts. You can refer to the the "Features" section in your link above for the complete list (notice one is missing). For further information about the relationship between OOP and mutability just google it. It's a waste of time to argue about a topic that is orthogonal to your original claim (before the goalposts moved): that the "problem" with OOP is how you invoke a function -- `noun.verb` as opposed to `verb(noun)`; As if those two systems are subject to different constraints. They are not. It is just semantics. The above isn't to say there doesn't exist consequential differences between OOP and FP, but I absolutely did _not_ engage in this discussion to argue about OOP vs FP in general. I think we actually both agree FP is a superior paradigm.
  - crimsonalucard 7y ago
    >The quoted text above is referring to objects, not OOP -- which encompasses a number of concepts. You can refer to the the "Features" section in your link above for the complete list (notice one is missing). For further information about the relationship between OOP and mutability just google it. Makes sense. Object oriented programming isn't programming revolving around objects. You totally invalidated all my claims with this genius argument here. You also invalidated the entire definition of OOP and wikipedia too. >It's a waste of time to argue about a topic that is orthogonal to your original claim (before the goalposts moved) At first I was going to say that the goal posts have not moved but your brain was the thing that moved. Then I realized nothing has moved. Your brain is still in the same place: A place of ignorance. >that the "problem" with OOP is how you invoke a function -- `noun.verb` as opposed to `verb(noun)`; As if those two systems are subject to different constraints. They are not. It is just semantics. Let me spell it out for you where the goal posts were when the conversation started. The goal posts were in a place where 99.999% of all programmers operate: In a universe of mute-able variables, mute-able objects and immutable functions. Typically "goal posts" start here because that's how 99.99999% of all programmers operate. So within the bounds of these "goal posts" you made a claim that OOP and Functions only have a semantic difference. Which is CATEGORICALLY wrong. So then I decided to let you know that your CLAIM is only TRUE if VARIABLES are immutable you acted AS IF we were ONLY talking about immutable variables ALL ALONG as if that's the primary assumption all programmers make when talking about programming. The goal post wasn't moved... get it? I only changed the context a little to show you WHEN your arguments would be true, BUT nowhere did I "change the goal posts." What happened after that is that YOU changed your argument. You imply that you've been ONLY talking about immutable variables all along and that I changed the goal posts to suit my needs. I can tell you 100% that you are either a liar or deeply delusional. You literally refuted a sourced definition of OOP in your attempt to stay relevant. Give it up dude. >The above isn't to say there doesn't exist consequential differences between OOP and FP, but I absolutely did _not_ engage in this discussion to argue about OOP vs FP in general. I think we actually both agree FP is a superior paradigm. I agree that we aren't talking about FP vs. OOP. What we are talking about is, and I quote: "that the "problem" with OOP is how you invoke a function -- `noun.verb` as opposed to `verb(noun)`; As if those two systems are subject to different constraints. They are not. It is just semantics." Which you are completely and utterly wrong about. You cannot make this statement without saying that all variables are immutable which is not a property that can be ASSUMED OUT OF THIN AIR.

crimsonalucard 7y ago

>I fear the goalposts have moved from "the problem with OOP" to "the problem with mutability". These are distinct concepts. No they ARE not. For OOP to work you have to have objects be mute-able. The modern definition of OOP are nodes that communicate with each other and change each others state. The minute you get rid of mute-ability is the minute you are doing functional programming. >One can absolutely practice OOP with immutability (looking at Scala here). Scala is a multi-paradigm language. Also scala is not always immutable. The objects in scala can mutate. >Similarly, OOP doesn't need to be written imperatively. It does if you want the properties of an object to change. That is the dichotomy of OOP and FP otherwise there is no dichotomy and no point for there to exist vocabulary to separate the two concepts. >Are you suggesting `sorted_people = people.sort()` isn't OOP? If I remove the engine from my car and roll it down a hill while in the drivers seat am I still driving the car? Yes. Technically I am. But key feature of the engine moving the car is missing. You can call people.sort() OOP you can also call it not OOP because it is missing the key feature of self modification. >You are building your own concept of OOP to argue against, not the one that exists in reality. lol lets look at the definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming I directly quote from the site above: "Object-oriented programming (OOP) is a programming paradigm based on the concept of "objects", which can contain data, in the form of fields (often known as attributes or properties), and code, in the form of procedures (often known as methods). A feature of objects is an object's procedures that can access and often modify the data fields of the object with which they are associated (objects have a notion of "this" or "self"). In OOP, computer programs are designed by making them out of objects that interact with one another." Key sentence above: "A feature of objects is an object's procedures that can access and often modify the data fields of the object with which they are associated" The goal post was never moved. It was set by the Actual definition of OOP. I am explicitly including this feature to make sure that ALL we are dealing with is OOP and not some hybrid functional or OOP merger. >(straw-man emoji) This mechanism of turning macros into emojis doesn't work here on HN! Similar to your arguments.

kingdomcome50 7y ago
The quoted text above is referring to objects, not OOP -- which encompasses a number of concepts. You can refer to the the "Features" section in your link above for the complete list (notice one is missing). For further information about the relationship between OOP and mutability just google it. It's a waste of time to argue about a topic that is orthogonal to your original claim (before the goalposts moved): that the "problem" with OOP is how you invoke a function -- `noun.verb` as opposed to `verb(noun)`; As if those two systems are subject to different constraints. They are not. It is just semantics. The above isn't to say there doesn't exist consequential differences between OOP and FP, but I absolutely did _not_ engage in this discussion to argue about OOP vs FP in general. I think we actually both agree FP is a superior paradigm.
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  >The quoted text above is referring to objects, not OOP -- which encompasses a number of concepts. You can refer to the the "Features" section in your link above for the complete list (notice one is missing). For further information about the relationship between OOP and mutability just google it. Makes sense. Object oriented programming isn't programming revolving around objects. You totally invalidated all my claims with this genius argument here. You also invalidated the entire definition of OOP and wikipedia too. >It's a waste of time to argue about a topic that is orthogonal to your original claim (before the goalposts moved) At first I was going to say that the goal posts have not moved but your brain was the thing that moved. Then I realized nothing has moved. Your brain is still in the same place: A place of ignorance. >that the "problem" with OOP is how you invoke a function -- `noun.verb` as opposed to `verb(noun)`; As if those two systems are subject to different constraints. They are not. It is just semantics. Let me spell it out for you where the goal posts were when the conversation started. The goal posts were in a place where 99.999% of all programmers operate: In a universe of mute-able variables, mute-able objects and immutable functions. Typically "goal posts" start here because that's how 99.99999% of all programmers operate. So within the bounds of these "goal posts" you made a claim that OOP and Functions only have a semantic difference. Which is CATEGORICALLY wrong. So then I decided to let you know that your CLAIM is only TRUE if VARIABLES are immutable you acted AS IF we were ONLY talking about immutable variables ALL ALONG as if that's the primary assumption all programmers make when talking about programming. The goal post wasn't moved... get it? I only changed the context a little to show you WHEN your arguments would be true, BUT nowhere did I "change the goal posts." What happened after that is that YOU changed your argument. You imply that you've been ONLY talking about immutable variables all along and that I changed the goal posts to suit my needs. I can tell you 100% that you are either a liar or deeply delusional. You literally refuted a sourced definition of OOP in your attempt to stay relevant. Give it up dude. >The above isn't to say there doesn't exist consequential differences between OOP and FP, but I absolutely did _not_ engage in this discussion to argue about OOP vs FP in general. I think we actually both agree FP is a superior paradigm. I agree that we aren't talking about FP vs. OOP. What we are talking about is, and I quote: "that the "problem" with OOP is how you invoke a function -- `noun.verb` as opposed to `verb(noun)`; As if those two systems are subject to different constraints. They are not. It is just semantics." Which you are completely and utterly wrong about. You cannot make this statement without saying that all variables are immutable which is not a property that can be ASSUMED OUT OF THIN AIR.