3 ms·

> I think it's lazy to dismiss the OOP as hate from experts who are complaining I'm sorry if this is what you understood. The hate is from people hearing the c

> I think it's lazy to dismiss the OOP as hate from experts who are complaining I'm sorry if this is what you understood. The hate is from people hearing the complaints of experts. The experts generally have great understanding of the pros and cons, and are aware of the weaknesses, which they will openly talk about and sometimes that will make it sound worse, almost hyperbolic to others. Even I'm faulty of doing this, I might say this just sucks, or it's total rubbish, but really I mean it's pretty good and there's a lot of good ideas and parts, just needs some refinement and a few modifications because there are still problems with it, and I just faced one such wart so I'm frustrated and writing a big blog post to complain about it. And this is the source of the misunderstanding. Overreaction and hyperboles from experts, taken at face value to those who are learning about it. To your other points, I think it's interesting you bring up React since its biggest competitors: Vue, Svelte and Angular are all OO based and seem to be doing well. > Can you name a contemporary expert or a platform that started or spent a good chunk of time as FP and ran back towards OOP Hum, I think most did. OCaml added an object system to ML. CommonLisp added an object system to lisp. Haskell added TypeClasses. Scala is an attempt at an Haskell like language with a full object system. F# and Kotlin both have object systems as well. One could argue actors are a purer form of OO. And so on. See, my point is that experts only ever complained about certain aspects of current iteration of so called OO programming languages. And as you can see, alternate languages they'd reach for or newer languages after them (or even newer version of those languages) all tried to address those shortcomings, but did not throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is convergence of ideas, and most of those languages have many if not most of the OO staple feature set, while having taken a few out or added some other inspired often by FP, but sometimes by other paradigms too.

johnisgood 6y ago
I like OCaml's and Common Lisp's OOP. I hate Java's OOP.
- didibus 6y ago
  Yup, and what happens when you take one entity that has qualities you dislike and generalize it to all entities of the same color? You get people hearing that OOP sucks, and they start to have fears and hatred towards it, thinking that all OO and every single idea and concept related to it is bad. This is called stereotyping, and it's not productive to bring into a technical conversation. Even inside FP it exists, ever saw a Scheme programer and a Haskell programmer debate? They'd go on forever about whose the one true Functional Programmer.
bryal 6y ago
> OCaml added an object system to ML. CommonLisp added an object system to lisp. Haskell added TypeClasses. Scala is an attempt at an Haskell like language with a full object system. F# and Kotlin both have object systems as well. One could argue actors are a purer form of OO. And so on. Haskell type classes have nothing to do with OOP in the least, and as far as I know, Ocaml is a counterexample rather than an example to your point: they included OOP becsuse it was all the hype at the time of conception, but the OOP features are really quite unpopular today. As you were completely off with Haskell, I can't exactly trust that you're right about any of the other languages "running back to OOP". If anything it seems to me the languages that started out as multi-paradigm FP/OOP have become more purely FP over time, as OOP has failed to prove its worth.
- didibus 6y ago
  It is hard to trace back the timeline history of all these things, especially as programming languages and their associated paradigms didn't evolve in a vacuum. With that said, I would say some people would agree that operator overloading and ad-hoc polymorphism are core features of OO languages. In fact, many people learn first about ad-hoc polymorphism through an OO language, such as learning about Java Interfaces or Traits in Ruby. So in that sense, TypeClasses do relate to OO. This is where things get muddy. What is OO, what is FP? If you keep yourself stuck in the taxonomy you'll never leave it, because choosing labels is a subjective process. You can put the boundary wherever you want, there is no success criteria. That said, there are real concentre ideas and implementation strategies. Those are more interesting, but don't get talked about very often. Some of OOs main features: - Data encapsulation - Polymorphism - Behavior abstraction And Haskell similarly puts a lot of emphasis on those same features. So what does one mean if they say OOP is bad? That those features are bad? That would transitively imply that Haskell similarly emphasises bad features? Now I don't know about everyone, but that's not what I mean if I criticize OOP, I'm not claiming to avoid polymorphism, to get rid of behavior abstraction, and to stop trying to encapsulate data. So the question is, what's wrong with OOP then? And this is where you'll see that things get nuanced and detailed oriented. And that it's not everything that is wrong, only certain specific things are not ideal and might have better solutions. And at that point, you can't even speak of OOP generally, you need to speak of specific languages. For example, you could argue that Haskell TypeClasses are a better way to implement ad-hoc polymorphism than Java Interfaces. But someone could say that Self's Traits are just as good if not better than both of those approaches. Etc.

johnisgood 6y ago

I like OCaml's and Common Lisp's OOP. I hate Java's OOP.

didibus 6y ago
Yup, and what happens when you take one entity that has qualities you dislike and generalize it to all entities of the same color? You get people hearing that OOP sucks, and they start to have fears and hatred towards it, thinking that all OO and every single idea and concept related to it is bad. This is called stereotyping, and it's not productive to bring into a technical conversation. Even inside FP it exists, ever saw a Scheme programer and a Haskell programmer debate? They'd go on forever about whose the one true Functional Programmer.

bryal 6y ago

> OCaml added an object system to ML. CommonLisp added an object system to lisp. Haskell added TypeClasses. Scala is an attempt at an Haskell like language with a full object system. F# and Kotlin both have object systems as well. One could argue actors are a purer form of OO. And so on. Haskell type classes have nothing to do with OOP in the least, and as far as I know, Ocaml is a counterexample rather than an example to your point: they included OOP becsuse it was all the hype at the time of conception, but the OOP features are really quite unpopular today. As you were completely off with Haskell, I can't exactly trust that you're right about any of the other languages "running back to OOP". If anything it seems to me the languages that started out as multi-paradigm FP/OOP have become more purely FP over time, as OOP has failed to prove its worth.

didibus 6y ago
It is hard to trace back the timeline history of all these things, especially as programming languages and their associated paradigms didn't evolve in a vacuum. With that said, I would say some people would agree that operator overloading and ad-hoc polymorphism are core features of OO languages. In fact, many people learn first about ad-hoc polymorphism through an OO language, such as learning about Java Interfaces or Traits in Ruby. So in that sense, TypeClasses do relate to OO. This is where things get muddy. What is OO, what is FP? If you keep yourself stuck in the taxonomy you'll never leave it, because choosing labels is a subjective process. You can put the boundary wherever you want, there is no success criteria. That said, there are real concentre ideas and implementation strategies. Those are more interesting, but don't get talked about very often. Some of OOs main features: - Data encapsulation - Polymorphism - Behavior abstraction And Haskell similarly puts a lot of emphasis on those same features. So what does one mean if they say OOP is bad? That those features are bad? That would transitively imply that Haskell similarly emphasises bad features? Now I don't know about everyone, but that's not what I mean if I criticize OOP, I'm not claiming to avoid polymorphism, to get rid of behavior abstraction, and to stop trying to encapsulate data. So the question is, what's wrong with OOP then? And this is where you'll see that things get nuanced and detailed oriented. And that it's not everything that is wrong, only certain specific things are not ideal and might have better solutions. And at that point, you can't even speak of OOP generally, you need to speak of specific languages. For example, you could argue that Haskell TypeClasses are a better way to implement ad-hoc polymorphism than Java Interfaces. But someone could say that Self's Traits are just as good if not better than both of those approaches. Etc.