3 ms·
So you fix OOP by taking away the things that make OOP, OOP? That just sounds like procedural programming with extra steps. Also, as an aside, I wouldn't call
by drbojingle 6y ago
So you fix OOP by taking away the things that make OOP, OOP?
That just sounds like procedural programming with extra steps.
Also, as an aside, I wouldn't call DRY a 'rock solid foundation' of programming. People do some weird contortions to make code DRY that end up causing my harm then good. Separations of Concerns is far more important. DRY is fine when applied within the scope of a feature, but not cross features. Otherwise you end up playing wack-a-mole when you fix a bug in one place only to make a new one somewhere else.
- GloriousKoji 6y agoI knew a programmer who was all in on DRY and it was the heart of many stupid debates. Not only did result in a crazy inheritance and dependency tree, there were tons of many useless functions. Like having "logger.log(obj.read_stream())" in a few places would be "WET" the API got cluttered clutter with crap like obj.read_and_log_stream()