5 ms·

Yes, but honestly that is super easy to avoid. We code in Java and pretty much all objects are @Immutable, inheritance is only used when its the right tool for

Yes, but honestly that is super easy to avoid. We code in Java and pretty much all objects are @Immutable, inheritance is only used when its the right tool for the problem (it really rarely is) and subtyping is solely done through interfaces. I think the main reason what people get wrong about OOP is that they tend to think everything needs to be models with inheritence, which is completely wrong. Inheritence is BAD! The rule should be: 1. Avoid inheritance 2. Use interfaces instead 3. If interfaces are not enough, use composition 4. If composition is not enough go through all other similar design patterns that are not based on inheritance. 5. If you really need inheritance, be very careful about which function you make non-final and non-private.

carlmr 6y ago
That sounds like you like functional programming with associated functions from OOP and not much else from the GoF book of nightmares. I mean Erlang is an actual OOP language according to the original creator of OOP's concept of message passing between objects. But each object internally is quite functional. It's just the Java crowd's deep inheritance enterprise code that makes every developer who survived that want to vomit.
- cryptos 6y ago
  I think most interpretations of OOP are too specific. Interpretations are often about classes, inheritance, polymorphism and stuff like that. But the original idea of OOP was more about message passing, so that you tell an abject what you would like it to do, but have no further influence of how it performs the request (if at all).
vram22 6y ago
>4. If composition is not enough go through all other similar design patterns that are not based on inheritance. IMO, that seems like too formulaic an approach without enough thinking in that step. Also, you mention design patterns, but the classic design pattern book nicknamed GoF (Gang of Four, i.e. by Gamma, Vlissides et al), has this guideline prominently on an early page (before the main body of text): "Prefer composition over inheritance" , or similar words (from memory). And that is the only sentence on that page, right in the middle, which could only have been done for great emphasis. But you say: 3. If interfaces are not enough, use composition And although you do say to avoid inheritance, aren't interfaces somewhat similar to inheritance, so shouldn't the same GoF guideline apply? Asking for myself.
- arunix 6y ago
  My copy of the GoF book does not have that sentence as the only one on it's page, however there are only two guiding principles mentioned in chapter one, the other one being: "Program to an interface, not an implementation" and this actually comes before the other one about composition. Inheritance (i.e. implementation inheritance) creates tight coupling between classes, whereas interfaces exist to prevent that happening, ... they are quite different constructs.
  - jgwil2 6y ago
    Agree, and would just add that interface inheritance can be useful too and is not the quagmire that implementation inheritance is.
  - vram22 6y ago
    I'm almost sure that my copy of the GoF book did have that sentence as the only one on its page, and as I said earlier, it was on a separate page before the main body of text, i.e. even before chapter one. Maybe we have different editions. Could still be wrong about that, though. E.g. it could been a different book, not GoF, although I think it unlikely. Why I say that I remember it being so, is because I once mentioned this to a startup founder I was consulting to, maybe because he had written some code that used inheritance unnecessarily, and I said it to him in that context, during a design discussion, and suggested we follow the guideline (to prefer composition over inheritance). He was impressed (I mean by the guideline, not me) and we did follow it from then on.

carlmr 6y ago

That sounds like you like functional programming with associated functions from OOP and not much else from the GoF book of nightmares. I mean Erlang is an actual OOP language according to the original creator of OOP's concept of message passing between objects. But each object internally is quite functional. It's just the Java crowd's deep inheritance enterprise code that makes every developer who survived that want to vomit.

cryptos 6y ago
I think most interpretations of OOP are too specific. Interpretations are often about classes, inheritance, polymorphism and stuff like that. But the original idea of OOP was more about message passing, so that you tell an abject what you would like it to do, but have no further influence of how it performs the request (if at all).

vram22 6y ago

>4. If composition is not enough go through all other similar design patterns that are not based on inheritance. IMO, that seems like too formulaic an approach without enough thinking in that step. Also, you mention design patterns, but the classic design pattern book nicknamed GoF (Gang of Four, i.e. by Gamma, Vlissides et al), has this guideline prominently on an early page (before the main body of text): "Prefer composition over inheritance" , or similar words (from memory). And that is the only sentence on that page, right in the middle, which could only have been done for great emphasis. But you say: 3. If interfaces are not enough, use composition And although you do say to avoid inheritance, aren't interfaces somewhat similar to inheritance, so shouldn't the same GoF guideline apply? Asking for myself.

arunix 6y ago
My copy of the GoF book does not have that sentence as the only one on it's page, however there are only two guiding principles mentioned in chapter one, the other one being: "Program to an interface, not an implementation" and this actually comes before the other one about composition. Inheritance (i.e. implementation inheritance) creates tight coupling between classes, whereas interfaces exist to prevent that happening, ... they are quite different constructs.
- jgwil2 6y ago
  Agree, and would just add that interface inheritance can be useful too and is not the quagmire that implementation inheritance is.
- vram22 6y ago
  I'm almost sure that my copy of the GoF book did have that sentence as the only one on its page, and as I said earlier, it was on a separate page before the main body of text, i.e. even before chapter one. Maybe we have different editions. Could still be wrong about that, though. E.g. it could been a different book, not GoF, although I think it unlikely. Why I say that I remember it being so, is because I once mentioned this to a startup founder I was consulting to, maybe because he had written some code that used inheritance unnecessarily, and I said it to him in that context, during a design discussion, and suggested we follow the guideline (to prefer composition over inheritance). He was impressed (I mean by the guideline, not me) and we did follow it from then on.