3 ms·

Tons of smart people vote for trump (Peter Thiel for example). I mean you get what I'm saying. Just because some smart people use it doesn't mean it's right. Ju

Tons of smart people vote for trump (Peter Thiel for example). I mean you get what I'm saying. Just because some smart people use it doesn't mean it's right. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's a success.

wvenable 5y ago
What will take for you to see that earth is round? Popular is bad. Smart people use it, it's bad. Billions of successful products making trillions of dollars, bad. You've come to a conclusion and no amount of absolutely overwhelming evidence can convince you otherwise.
- deltaonefour 5y ago
  The entire world produces green house gases which will ultimately end the human race doesn't mean it's good even though overwhelming people use it. >You've come to a conclusion and no amount of absolutely overwhelming evidence can convince you otherwise. I didn't come to a conclusion. All I am saying is YOUR conclusion has no basis. Popularity is not evidence for success.
  - wvenable 5y ago
    What is evidence for success then?
    - deltaonefour 5y ago
      A mathematical proof that OOP programs are more modular and less complex then procedural or functional programs. We are in the realm of logic and idealized language primitives. Thus things can be proven via logic. Science, statistics and other data driven methods are weaker wherever something can be proven via logic. So while popularity doesn't even serve to slightly support the hypothesis of success, even if it did, a logical proof is superior and makes the conclusion definitive. If such a thing is discovered it is definitive. It will destroy all arguments against OOP. Until then the next best thing is examples. Given an OOP program, give the FP or imperative equivalent. Prove the OOP program is definitively better for the one single case.
      - wvenable 5y ago
        Completely misses the human element though. I spend a significant amount of effort in programming ensuring that the code is readable to humans. Why? Because humans are the most important part -- they're both the creators and the reason why we do it. You can create the most mathematically perfect paradigm/language but if it's brutal nobody will use it. Is that success? I don't think so. The biggest issue in software development is the sheer size of it all. How do we build software that literally requires dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of developers all working on the same thing? I have evidence in the success of OOP in solving that problem in the form of all the software that exists and works. The proof is literally out there, everywhere. Your measure of success isn't even theoretical, it's an unproven (maybe unprovable) hypothesis. My measure of success is the practical. You can completely disregard that as "popularity" but to what end?
        deltaonefour 5y ago
        >Completely misses the human element though That's the point. The entire programming world moves in circles reinventing the wheel and repeating the same mistakes every decade or so. Humans are biased. We need definitive answers. >You can create the most mathematically perfect paradigm/language but if it's brutal nobody will use it. Is that success? I don't think so. No I never said this. All I said was PROVE OOP is BETTER than other paradigms in terms of modularity and complexity. I never said design a perfect mathematical language from scratch. In fact, in mathematics, the concept of perfect doesn't exist. A language is just a language, it's not better or more perfect than any other language. >The biggest issue in software development is the sheer size of it all. How do we build software that literally requires dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of developers all working on the same thing? I don't know where you're going with this. The argument is whether OOP is a good paradigm and an easy way to prove this is to either mathematically prove it's better than all other paradigms or give examples on how it's better. Give me singular examples where OOP is superior and that lends credence to your argument. How does saying that software development is "huge" with "thousands of developers" working on it mean anything at all? It doesn't. It strays from the main point. >I have evidence in the success of OOP in solving that problem in the form of all the software that exists and works OOP and FP are both turing complete. That means Every OOP program has an FP and imperative counterpart. In addition to this many Non-OOP software solutions exist in the real world. Linux for example is NOT OOP. Thus for both OOP and FP and imperative. Mathematical Proof EXISTS that it works. Statistical evidence through existing software also adds to that proof. The argument is WHICH is better? That's all we disagree on right now. Which Paradigm is superior and in what area? > You can completely disregard that as "popularity" but to what end? I can completely disregard it because in many areas it has been shown to be completely unreliable, illogical and contradictory. This is statistically valid. For example religion. Thousands of religions are popular in this world. All of them are declared as the absolute truth, all of them are contradictory. Why are you continuously using a metric that has ACTUALLY been disproved to be reliable as your bar? The popularity of OOP ONLY shows that it works. It does not show that it is BETTER.

wvenable 5y ago

What will take for you to see that earth is round? Popular is bad. Smart people use it, it's bad. Billions of successful products making trillions of dollars, bad. You've come to a conclusion and no amount of absolutely overwhelming evidence can convince you otherwise.

deltaonefour 5y ago
The entire world produces green house gases which will ultimately end the human race doesn't mean it's good even though overwhelming people use it. >You've come to a conclusion and no amount of absolutely overwhelming evidence can convince you otherwise. I didn't come to a conclusion. All I am saying is YOUR conclusion has no basis. Popularity is not evidence for success.
- wvenable 5y ago
  What is evidence for success then?
  - deltaonefour 5y ago
    A mathematical proof that OOP programs are more modular and less complex then procedural or functional programs. We are in the realm of logic and idealized language primitives. Thus things can be proven via logic. Science, statistics and other data driven methods are weaker wherever something can be proven via logic. So while popularity doesn't even serve to slightly support the hypothesis of success, even if it did, a logical proof is superior and makes the conclusion definitive. If such a thing is discovered it is definitive. It will destroy all arguments against OOP. Until then the next best thing is examples. Given an OOP program, give the FP or imperative equivalent. Prove the OOP program is definitively better for the one single case.
    - wvenable 5y ago
      Completely misses the human element though. I spend a significant amount of effort in programming ensuring that the code is readable to humans. Why? Because humans are the most important part -- they're both the creators and the reason why we do it. You can create the most mathematically perfect paradigm/language but if it's brutal nobody will use it. Is that success? I don't think so. The biggest issue in software development is the sheer size of it all. How do we build software that literally requires dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of developers all working on the same thing? I have evidence in the success of OOP in solving that problem in the form of all the software that exists and works. The proof is literally out there, everywhere. Your measure of success isn't even theoretical, it's an unproven (maybe unprovable) hypothesis. My measure of success is the practical. You can completely disregard that as "popularity" but to what end?
      - deltaonefour 5y ago
        >Completely misses the human element though That's the point. The entire programming world moves in circles reinventing the wheel and repeating the same mistakes every decade or so. Humans are biased. We need definitive answers. >You can create the most mathematically perfect paradigm/language but if it's brutal nobody will use it. Is that success? I don't think so. No I never said this. All I said was PROVE OOP is BETTER than other paradigms in terms of modularity and complexity. I never said design a perfect mathematical language from scratch. In fact, in mathematics, the concept of perfect doesn't exist. A language is just a language, it's not better or more perfect than any other language. >The biggest issue in software development is the sheer size of it all. How do we build software that literally requires dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of developers all working on the same thing? I don't know where you're going with this. The argument is whether OOP is a good paradigm and an easy way to prove this is to either mathematically prove it's better than all other paradigms or give examples on how it's better. Give me singular examples where OOP is superior and that lends credence to your argument. How does saying that software development is "huge" with "thousands of developers" working on it mean anything at all? It doesn't. It strays from the main point. >I have evidence in the success of OOP in solving that problem in the form of all the software that exists and works OOP and FP are both turing complete. That means Every OOP program has an FP and imperative counterpart. In addition to this many Non-OOP software solutions exist in the real world. Linux for example is NOT OOP. Thus for both OOP and FP and imperative. Mathematical Proof EXISTS that it works. Statistical evidence through existing software also adds to that proof. The argument is WHICH is better? That's all we disagree on right now. Which Paradigm is superior and in what area? > You can completely disregard that as "popularity" but to what end? I can completely disregard it because in many areas it has been shown to be completely unreliable, illogical and contradictory. This is statistically valid. For example religion. Thousands of religions are popular in this world. All of them are declared as the absolute truth, all of them are contradictory. Why are you continuously using a metric that has ACTUALLY been disproved to be reliable as your bar? The popularity of OOP ONLY shows that it works. It does not show that it is BETTER.