31 ms·
> On the contrary, I think that's a self-fulfilling perception. So is using SQL. My point, as well as the parent author's point, is that I've found a technolog
by munificent 4y ago
> On the contrary, I think that's a self-fulfilling perception.
So is using SQL. My point, as well as the parent author's point, is that I've found a technology that has been a useful source of value for my entire career. I make no claims that there aren't other useful sources of value, but I've never for a second regretted the time I've spent getting better at writing object-oriented code.
I'm also quite comfortable writing functional and dataflow-oriented code, but I've never found those to be as exciting as some people seem to.
- kortex 4y agoFair enough! And yeah, since OOP is everywhere, there's zero downside to getting better at it. > I've never found those to be as exciting as some people seem to. It's less about excitement (for me at least) and less about the hair pulling associated with reasoning about complex state. I find the more independent attributes an object has, the harder it gets to reason about, unless I can serialize the whole thing (which usually goes against encapsulation). I'd say that's the number 1 thing I do to get "better at OOP": have a healthy suspicion towards any long-lived object I can't serialize/deserialize using primitive types.