3 ms·
Successful as in slow to use, poorly designed, difficult to extend and a memory hog. You can't even reuse code between rails1 and rail2. OO is a joke. Pure OO l
by foobar_ 6y ago
Successful as in slow to use, poorly designed, difficult to extend and a memory hog. You can't even reuse code between rails1 and rail2. OO is a joke. Pure OO languages like Java and SmallTalk are already failures. C++, Scala, Kotlin are not OO languages. Design patterns are not engineering, let alone architecture.
The only success for OO has been UI development. It's a failure everywhere else. OO databases are a failure. ORM is a failure. OO based distributed computing has failed, we use REST. OO based design is a failure, no one uses UML.
OO based architects are a waste of time and money. You can replace all OO based architecture nonsense and patterns with code written in Go.
- Nursie 6y agoJava is not pure OO, neither is it objectively any sort of failure, being one of the most widely used languages out there. As such I don't think the rest of your post is worth consideration.
- foobar_ 6y agoJava Web Start is such a big success.
- h8hawk 6y agoI won't put java and smalltalk in same class. They are much different. >Design patterns are not engineering, let alone architecture >Sadly no programming language has made hierarchical state machines a first class feature to support with syntax despite it being software engineering unlike what OO bros claim What do you mean by engineering here?