3 ms·

I'm convinced the big win with OOP was more about modularity and encapsulation than OOP. The whole object.method() or object.variable model was pretty nice afte

I'm convinced the big win with OOP was more about modularity and encapsulation than OOP. The whole object.method() or object.variable model was pretty nice after spending years dealing with global soup or using naming conventions. The not-so-good part in particular happened when you inherited one too many times... very easy to write, and very hard to debug, maintain, and sometimes test. A lot of OOP's success it was timing - OO showed up right around the time that we started building large gui apps. Now we have a lot of languages that do a great job doing encapsulation at the module level, which seems to be "good enough" and functional and procedural code seems to work pretty well, and be pretty easy to maintain at the module level.

MaxMoney 5y ago
activitypea 5y ago
"Why isn't functional programming the norm" discusses your points. If you haven't seen it, it makes a great in-depth argument for why you're right :)
- indymike 5y ago
  Thank you for confirming my biases :-)
deepsquirrelnet 5y ago
This is my thought as well. There are still good reasons for using inheritance. In the right use cases, overloading methods can be a life saver. But generally, I have gravitated away from using those patterns, and toward things like composition, which are simpler and seem to be much less fragile. Recently, I've enjoyed the simple utility of python's functools library. Small-inheritance-like functionality seems to find a happy medium in a lot of cases, while avoiding a lot of unnecessary abstraction and boilerplate.