2 ms·

For anyone unfamiliar, I recommend the whole series, but it also culminates in the presenter rewriting an entire nontrivial OOP program into a procedural one an

For anyone unfamiliar, I recommend the whole series, but it also culminates in the presenter rewriting an entire nontrivial OOP program into a procedural one and saving whopping amounts of code/complexity. The big example helps to show this isn't just abstract rambling against OOP. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V6VP-2aIcSc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V6VP-2aIcSc

magicalhippo 4y ago
To me, his title is somewhat misleading though. It seems he's against the extreme "everything is an object" version of OOP. I think taking things to the extreme is almost always a bad thing. Sometimes goto is a good solution. I do agree with most of his points though, which just so happens to be closely aligned with how I've ended up programming. I like to use interfaces, so my objects hierarchies are very shallow and use a lot of delegation, overriding few if any methods. I also write a lot of free-standing functions, some long, when I feel that's best. I also mix in a fair bit of functional-like programming, especially when massaging data.
- codemonkey-zeta 4y ago
  > he's against the extreme "everything is an object" version of OOP I totally agree with you. I think he focuses on this style because it's generally what's taught in Universities, and he also has tons of tutorials geared towards students. So he's exposing his audience to the idea that some OOP principles are good, but overly adhering to the paradigm (in the way that would get you a 100% grade in an OOP class in college) is actually a bad way to program in general.
  - magicalhippo 4y ago
    That's a fair point, and as I mentioned I do agree with his conclusion. Being self-taught, I was already a proficient programmer in Delphi and C++ by the time I went to University. So to me OOP has always been "OOP when you need it". Though now that you mention it, even by the time I started University I had a profound dislike for Java's "OO all the things" approach. It has not subsided...

magicalhippo 4y ago

To me, his title is somewhat misleading though. It seems he's against the extreme "everything is an object" version of OOP. I think taking things to the extreme is almost always a bad thing. Sometimes goto is a good solution. I do agree with most of his points though, which just so happens to be closely aligned with how I've ended up programming. I like to use interfaces, so my objects hierarchies are very shallow and use a lot of delegation, overriding few if any methods. I also write a lot of free-standing functions, some long, when I feel that's best. I also mix in a fair bit of functional-like programming, especially when massaging data.

codemonkey-zeta 4y ago
> he's against the extreme "everything is an object" version of OOP I totally agree with you. I think he focuses on this style because it's generally what's taught in Universities, and he also has tons of tutorials geared towards students. So he's exposing his audience to the idea that some OOP principles are good, but overly adhering to the paradigm (in the way that would get you a 100% grade in an OOP class in college) is actually a bad way to program in general.
- magicalhippo 4y ago
  That's a fair point, and as I mentioned I do agree with his conclusion. Being self-taught, I was already a proficient programmer in Delphi and C++ by the time I went to University. So to me OOP has always been "OOP when you need it". Though now that you mention it, even by the time I started University I had a profound dislike for Java's "OO all the things" approach. It has not subsided...