3 ms·
>I'm not saying OOP is popular, I'm saying it's successful.You're not making an argument against that at all. No. No. I am NOT making an argument saying is OOP
by deltaonefour 5y ago
>I'm not saying OOP is popular, I'm saying it's successful.You're not making an argument against that at all.
No. No. I am NOT making an argument saying is OOP is NOT Successful. I never Made such an argument EVER.
What I am saying is that your argument is completely Invalid. I am saying you can make no such argument for OOP being successful. Big difference. I make no argument on anything other than saying your argument CANNOT be made with your given evidence.
The evidence you present only supports OOP's popularity. Not it's success. Unless you count popularity as success. The argument can still be made that for every application of OOP on ANY project a better non-OOP solution could have been made. This is a possibility. My post only opens this as a possibility and dismisses your post as the absolute truth.
- wvenable 5y agoThe flaw in your argument is that those non-OOP solutions were not made. They don't exist. The idea that some other programming paradigm is more successful based on products that don't exist is ridiculous.
- deltaonefour 5y agoLinux is not OOP. The react and redux pattern eschews OOP. (You can use OOP components but the overarching pattern is functional) Many solutions are made without OOP.