4 ms·
> In practice, OOP basically exists to take some horribly messy program, put an interface around it, and make it slightly less terrible to deal with. This is t
by throwawaylinux 5y ago
> In practice, OOP basically exists to take some horribly messy program, put an interface around it, and make it slightly less terrible to deal with.
This is the sort of hype that has followed OOP around everywhere though. Well that's great, of course we would want to take a horribly messy program and make it less messy! Who wouldn't?
But where is the evidence that it actually performs as advertised? Does it make software easier to deal with? Is it superior to alternative ways to achieve that?
- joe_the_user 5y agoBut where is the evidence that it actually performs as advertised? Does it make software easier to deal with? Is it superior to alternative ways to achieve that? What are those alternative ways to make a huge system manageable you allude to? As I said, none of the paradigms put forward as alternatives even claim to operate like this. It's serious question, what are the alternatives in this kind of situation? And I'll admit, a "horrible messy situation" that we'd look at today is going to be an earlier OOP system.
- throwawaylinux 5y agoI'm not making the claim though. I want to know what the data is for your assertion that OOP "makes a huge system manageable" in a way that other approaches or language features can not. Mind you there are countless millions of lines of COBOL, C, etc out there in production so existence alone does not provide any evidence one way or another.