3 ms·

Look, this is going to back and forth. Take a time machine to pre Web 2.0 and explain to everyone why OOP programming sucks. I’d dare you to take it off your re

Look, this is going to back and forth. Take a time machine to pre Web 2.0 and explain to everyone why OOP programming sucks. I’d dare you to take it off your resume. But we’re here now right? It’s not hard for me to imagine the reversal of this trend inevitably where everyone goes ‘the fuck are we writing all these verbose types for this dumb web app for?’.

triyambakam 5y ago
I really don't see what the back and forth is. Types are not inherently a fad - but there can be people who promote them with fanaticism as a cure-all or for problems they can't solve. There were people skeptical and critical of OOP when it was popular. I don't believe that OOP is inherently a fad either - it has its place. Different paradigms just get caught in the windstorm of fad interest. > [why] are we writing all these verbose types for this dumb web app for? You can take anything to the extreme, but types are a zero risk, low effort investment that has a quick return. If someone over-types something it's hardly a problem compared to an over engineered OOP codebase.
- crate_barre 5y ago
  I guess thats my main deal breaker. It’s simply another foot gun to allow people to over abstract. I have no issues with modest typing, it’s nice, it’s clear. I have issues with what entropy inevitably does.
  - triyambakam 5y ago
    So why are we in disagreement then? I am not advocating fanaticism, you simply seem to have implied and inferred that.
    - crate_barre 5y ago
      Sometimes it takes a discussion, I’m not in the business of upvoting or downvoting :p
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  The problem with OOP is that there is not a single definition. There are a bunch of people claiming this and that are OOP. To me OOP is encapsulating a mutable state inside a dynamic namespace (an object, an instance of class), with functions that can access the state and the ability to inherit / extend namespaces. And I absolutely don't need it, I don't agree with the view some things are better done with OOP. Even gaming or GUI programming, domains typically considered to be the best for OOP, turned to ECS (which is very functional) and Elm style APIs. Going back at OOP: I consider mutable state to be a necessary evil to be limited as much as possible; inheritance makes it hard to track what code is being run. The best practice for writing OOP revolves around limiting mutable state and inheritance, so why even bother with OOP in the first place? I can have encapsulation with namespaces / modules in functional languages as well. I don't need much else and I can live happily without `this` and using composition instead of inheritance. OOP was the first marketing wave focused at developers and it's gone.
dahauns 5y ago
You're a bit late to the party...Web 2.0 was this phase.

triyambakam 5y ago

I really don't see what the back and forth is. Types are not inherently a fad - but there can be people who promote them with fanaticism as a cure-all or for problems they can't solve. There were people skeptical and critical of OOP when it was popular. I don't believe that OOP is inherently a fad either - it has its place. Different paradigms just get caught in the windstorm of fad interest. > [why] are we writing all these verbose types for this dumb web app for? You can take anything to the extreme, but types are a zero risk, low effort investment that has a quick return. If someone over-types something it's hardly a problem compared to an over engineered OOP codebase.

crate_barre 5y ago
I guess thats my main deal breaker. It’s simply another foot gun to allow people to over abstract. I have no issues with modest typing, it’s nice, it’s clear. I have issues with what entropy inevitably does.
- triyambakam 5y ago
  So why are we in disagreement then? I am not advocating fanaticism, you simply seem to have implied and inferred that.
  - crate_barre 5y ago
    Sometimes it takes a discussion, I’m not in the business of upvoting or downvoting :p
jokethrowaway 5y ago
The problem with OOP is that there is not a single definition. There are a bunch of people claiming this and that are OOP. To me OOP is encapsulating a mutable state inside a dynamic namespace (an object, an instance of class), with functions that can access the state and the ability to inherit / extend namespaces. And I absolutely don't need it, I don't agree with the view some things are better done with OOP. Even gaming or GUI programming, domains typically considered to be the best for OOP, turned to ECS (which is very functional) and Elm style APIs. Going back at OOP: I consider mutable state to be a necessary evil to be limited as much as possible; inheritance makes it hard to track what code is being run. The best practice for writing OOP revolves around limiting mutable state and inheritance, so why even bother with OOP in the first place? I can have encapsulation with namespaces / modules in functional languages as well. I don't need much else and I can live happily without `this` and using composition instead of inheritance. OOP was the first marketing wave focused at developers and it's gone.

dahauns 5y ago

You're a bit late to the party...Web 2.0 was this phase.