5 ms·

>Completely misses the human element though That's the point. The entire programming world moves in circles reinventing the wheel and repeating the same mistak

>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
You keep moving the goal posts. I never said better, I said most successful. If you want to say better, then you need to say better "for what". > 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. Right so there could be non-OOP counterparts to the overabundance of OOP applications but they don't exist. You argue that everyone in the world is an idiot and you're the one sane person -- think about that. Linux has plenty of OOP design patterns. https://lwn.net/Articles/444910/ https://lwn.net/Articles/444910/ https://lwn.net/Articles/446317/ https://lwn.net/Articles/446317/
- deltaonefour 5y ago
  >You keep moving the goal posts. I never said better, I said most successful. If something was the "most successful" then by definition it would be "better" then everything else including FP and imperative. No goal post was moved. >Right so there could be non-OOP counterparts to the overabundance of OOP applications but they don't exist. They do. Linux was one example. Whatsapp is another example. They exist. I'm not sure why your dismissing them. Sure the majority is OOP but again that doesn't mean anything. >You argue that everyone in the world is an idiot and you're the one sane person -- think about that. I never said that. Think about that. I said popularity is not proof it's better. I never said they were idiots, and I never said they are wrong. I am simply saying something being popular doesn't mean it's successful. It doesn't determine anything. A popular thing could be successful it could not be successful and popularity is a bad foundation for arguments. Additionally you just need to look at the world and contradictory religious practices leading to jihads, crusades and suicide bombings to question the veracity of "popularity." >Linux has plenty of OOP design patterns. Sure isomorphism to patterns exist in FP to OOP to imperative. You'll find connections and similarities between patterns of EVERY paradigm. Doesn't change the overall fact that Linux overall is NOT OOP. You think just because map and reduce exist as methods in java makes it a functional language? No. The overall point of the language and design decision is what matters here. Linux is NOT OOP.
  - 5y ago

wvenable 5y ago

You keep moving the goal posts. I never said better, I said most successful. If you want to say better, then you need to say better "for what". > 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. Right so there could be non-OOP counterparts to the overabundance of OOP applications but they don't exist. You argue that everyone in the world is an idiot and you're the one sane person -- think about that. Linux has plenty of OOP design patterns. https://lwn.net/Articles/444910/ https://lwn.net/Articles/444910/ https://lwn.net/Articles/446317/ https://lwn.net/Articles/446317/

deltaonefour 5y ago
>You keep moving the goal posts. I never said better, I said most successful. If something was the "most successful" then by definition it would be "better" then everything else including FP and imperative. No goal post was moved. >Right so there could be non-OOP counterparts to the overabundance of OOP applications but they don't exist. They do. Linux was one example. Whatsapp is another example. They exist. I'm not sure why your dismissing them. Sure the majority is OOP but again that doesn't mean anything. >You argue that everyone in the world is an idiot and you're the one sane person -- think about that. I never said that. Think about that. I said popularity is not proof it's better. I never said they were idiots, and I never said they are wrong. I am simply saying something being popular doesn't mean it's successful. It doesn't determine anything. A popular thing could be successful it could not be successful and popularity is a bad foundation for arguments. Additionally you just need to look at the world and contradictory religious practices leading to jihads, crusades and suicide bombings to question the veracity of "popularity." >Linux has plenty of OOP design patterns. Sure isomorphism to patterns exist in FP to OOP to imperative. You'll find connections and similarities between patterns of EVERY paradigm. Doesn't change the overall fact that Linux overall is NOT OOP. You think just because map and reduce exist as methods in java makes it a functional language? No. The overall point of the language and design decision is what matters here. Linux is NOT OOP.
- 5y ago