4 ms·

i hate OO programming because of inheritance. It pissed me off to have to look through layers and layers of parents to search for a method. Stick with good ol'

i hate OO programming because of inheritance. It pissed me off to have to look through layers and layers of parents to search for a method. Stick with good ol' functions for easy debugging.

palish 19y ago
Except you can't have just functions, because then you end up with a semi-object system anyway. For example, you might have a function "dot" which puts a period at the end of a string, and a function "dot" which returns the dot product of two vectors. The first should be a string method, and the second should be a vector method. Without an object system, you'd call it dot-string and dot-vector, which is okay, but semi-object-oriented. Lisp has something that specializes functions based on its first argument.. That might be useful for that.
- Zak 19y ago
  CL's generic functions are a bit more sophisticated than just specializing based on the first argument. Peter Seibel's book has a good chapter on them: http://gigamonkeys.com/book/object-reorientation-generic-functions.html http://gigamonkeys.com/book/object-reorientation-generic-functions.html
- asb 19y ago
  I disagree. A language without OO can allow code to be organised in an intelligent way by providing a module system. See Standard ML as (what I consider to be) a good example of this.
  - keiretsu 19y ago
    i agree. i'm using a module system myself and it's way better than OO
    - Tichy 19y ago
      How can it be better, it seems to me that a module system would be a subset of an OO system? So logically it can't be better, if you are not forced to use all features of the system.
paul 19y ago
So don't use inheritance. Seriously. Inheritance is annoying, but unnecessary. I generally avoid it. You can still use other parts of OO.
- ralph 19y ago
  Good advice, but it doesn't help when one's coding in a larger system not just written by oneself. Then there's operator overloading; you can't trust anything to be doing what it suggests in an unknown, or large, codebase. Code readability goes down the pan if too much is hidden by mis-used OO techniques.
  - Tichy 19y ago
    Not all OO languages allow operator overloading.
aston 19y ago
Sounds like you need a better IDE. Or grep...
budu3 19y ago
Inheritance is helpful in some instances. I can't imagine JUint with inheritance. But it can definitely be misused.

i hate OO programming because of inheritance. It pissed me off to have to look through layers and layers of parents to search for a method. Stick with good ol' functions for easy debugging.

palish 19y ago

Except you can't have just functions, because then you end up with a semi-object system anyway. For example, you might have a function "dot" which puts a period at the end of a string, and a function "dot" which returns the dot product of two vectors. The first should be a string method, and the second should be a vector method. Without an object system, you'd call it dot-string and dot-vector, which is okay, but semi-object-oriented. Lisp has something that specializes functions based on its first argument.. That might be useful for that.

Zak 19y ago
CL's generic functions are a bit more sophisticated than just specializing based on the first argument. Peter Seibel's book has a good chapter on them: http://gigamonkeys.com/book/object-reorientation-generic-functions.html http://gigamonkeys.com/book/object-reorientation-generic-functions.html
asb 19y ago
I disagree. A language without OO can allow code to be organised in an intelligent way by providing a module system. See Standard ML as (what I consider to be) a good example of this.
- keiretsu 19y ago
  i agree. i'm using a module system myself and it's way better than OO
  - Tichy 19y ago
    How can it be better, it seems to me that a module system would be a subset of an OO system? So logically it can't be better, if you are not forced to use all features of the system.

paul 19y ago

So don't use inheritance. Seriously. Inheritance is annoying, but unnecessary. I generally avoid it. You can still use other parts of OO.

ralph 19y ago
Good advice, but it doesn't help when one's coding in a larger system not just written by oneself. Then there's operator overloading; you can't trust anything to be doing what it suggests in an unknown, or large, codebase. Code readability goes down the pan if too much is hidden by mis-used OO techniques.
- Tichy 19y ago
  Not all OO languages allow operator overloading.

aston 19y ago

Sounds like you need a better IDE. Or grep...

budu3 19y ago

Inheritance is helpful in some instances. I can't imagine JUint with inheritance. But it can definitely be misused.