3 ms·

> or they could give their definition of OO up front. This is exactly what they must NOT do. If one is going to criticize, criticize the actual bad concepts, n

> or they could give their definition of OO up front. This is exactly what they must NOT do. If one is going to criticize, criticize the actual bad concepts, not the (poorly defined) paradigm. OOP and FP are effectively undefinable, and rightly so since they have outlived their usefulness as vehicles for introducing their respective "bunch of concepts". Nobody's going to agree in the modern era what OOP or FP encompass, and anyone who attempts to define them will rightly be lambasted for it. But we CAN agree on the definition and argue over the merits of concepts such as inheritance, immutability, lazy evaluations, closures, encapsulation, monads, etc. And the fact that languages are taking concepts from both "camps" shows how they were never actually opposed; merely components of different schools of thought that happened to contain some incompatible or opposing concepts.

throwaway894345 5y ago
> This is exactly what they must NOT do. If one is going to criticize, criticize the actual bad concepts, not the (poorly defined) paradigm. OOP and FP are effectively undefinable, and rightly so since they have outlived their usefulness as vehicles for introducing their respective "bunch of concepts". It’s perfectly fine to define a shorthand for a larger concept, (even if that word has meanings in other contexts) so long as it’s clear what we mean by the term. We do this all the time in our writing and oratory (e.g., the biology sense of “immortality”). The problem with OOP (and to a lesser extent, FP) is that we don’t make it clear what we mean by those terms and that makes for more misunderstandings between good faith actors and it gives bad faith actors more opportunity to drive the debate toward semantics. Being explicit up front solves that. > Nobody's going to agree in the modern era what OOP or FP encompass, and anyone who attempts to define them will rightly be lambasted for it. We don’t need to agree. We are free to define our terms. If I define OOP as X and criticize it accordingly, and you say “but my definition of OOP is Y so your argument is invalid!” then you’re very poor at reasoning and for all intents and purposes you’ve lost the debate.

throwaway894345 5y ago

> This is exactly what they must NOT do. If one is going to criticize, criticize the actual bad concepts, not the (poorly defined) paradigm. OOP and FP are effectively undefinable, and rightly so since they have outlived their usefulness as vehicles for introducing their respective "bunch of concepts". It’s perfectly fine to define a shorthand for a larger concept, (even if that word has meanings in other contexts) so long as it’s clear what we mean by the term. We do this all the time in our writing and oratory (e.g., the biology sense of “immortality”). The problem with OOP (and to a lesser extent, FP) is that we don’t make it clear what we mean by those terms and that makes for more misunderstandings between good faith actors and it gives bad faith actors more opportunity to drive the debate toward semantics. Being explicit up front solves that. > Nobody's going to agree in the modern era what OOP or FP encompass, and anyone who attempts to define them will rightly be lambasted for it. We don’t need to agree. We are free to define our terms. If I define OOP as X and criticize it accordingly, and you say “but my definition of OOP is Y so your argument is invalid!” then you’re very poor at reasoning and for all intents and purposes you’ve lost the debate.