3 ms·
This is just a rephrasing of a boilerplate response to any criticism at all: "there is a time/place for OOP!" followed by precisely zero articulation about when
by throwaway894345 5y ago
This is just a rephrasing of a boilerplate response to any criticism at all: "there is a time/place for OOP!" followed by precisely zero articulation about when one should use OOP over a rival paradigm. It is one of the weakest arguments I can conceive of (perhaps following "but that's not true OOP" with no assertion about what characterizes OOP, or a definition of OOP that is only esoteric).
Why do you feel the need to talk to programmers using a construction metaphor rather than talking about programming paradigms directly? If OOP has merit, shouldn't it be relatively easy to articulate as to programmers? What is OOP good at? When should I use it rather than a data-oriented approach? Why talk in tenuous metaphor?
- ncmncm 5y agoYou just read that the whole notion of object-oriented (or anything-oriented) programming has no merit, and are now asking me for examples where it has merit. You are usually constrained to a particular language or, sometimes, mix of languages. You have access to a set of language features. Use them in any mix that solves the problem. If runtime polymorphism would be useful, use it. If arrays would be useful, use them. If recursion would be useful, use it. If compile-time type matching would be useful, use it.
- throwaway894345 5y agoThank you, I always appreciate a thoughtful critique.