5 ms·
> If you had that reaction, you might want to take some time to explicitly free your thought process from OOP-isms. If you have this reaction, perhaps you shou
by vegai_ 4y ago
> If you had that reaction, you might want to take some time to explicitly free your thought process from OOP-isms.
If you have this reaction, perhaps you should take a humility lesson before claiming that a few syntax tricks is all it takes to outsmart people who spent their entire university careers thinking about these problems.
- anonymoushn 4y agoA lot of people have spent their entire industry careers dealing with these problems, and the result seems to be the sentiment you've encountered in this comment section.
- hsn915 4y agoNah, OOP is bad. It's been a while since I met anyone, online or offline, who still takes OOP seriously.
- vegai_ 4y ago/s, right?
- hsn915 4y agoNo.
- vegai_ 4y agoWell, you've met one now, so you can update that assumption. And also if you look higher up this thread, the author of this article takes it seriously as well. So that's two already in a pretty short time!
- eska 4y agoThe comment you’re referring to merely refrains from making a value judgment, while you’re turning it into an approval of OOP.
- vegai_ 4y ago>Thinking in OOP terms in, say, Java is great. How did you interpret this statement?
- eska 4y agoCompare: thinking in OOP terms in say, Haskell, is terrible. -> doesn’t mean OOP is terrible or that Haskell is terrible. Thinking in functional terms in Haskell is great. -> doesn’t mean functional programming is great or that Haskell is great. All it means is that the language is designed to be used with that paradigm.
- sph 4y agoPoe's Law strikes again!
- kristoff_it 4y ago> before claiming that a few syntax tricks is all it takes to outsmart people who spent their entire university careers thinking about these problems I don't think I have written anything of that sort. Thinking in OOP terms in, say, Java is great. Zig is not an OOP language though, and it cares about mapping nicely to CPU instructions more than it cares about mapping nicely to UML diagrams, so thinking in OOP terms in Zig is not that great, more often than not. I've seen plenty of people coming into Zig expecting it to conform to their expectations towards object orientation or functional purity. Neither will be able to have a good time if they can't let go of their preconceptions.
- vegai_ 4y agoSorry for misunderstanding the mood and context. In context of Zig, this makes a lot of sense, making my calls for humility premature and tad ironic.
- matheusmoreira 4y agoPeople spend entire careers thinking about object-oriented programming?
- vegai_ 4y agoHeh. I'm sure they thought and worked on others things too, but many focused on it, yes.
- matheusmoreira 4y agoAny recent innovations? Because even traditional object-oriented languages like Java and C# seem to be getting more functional over time, and the endless attempts to add classes to Javascript only make it worse.
- pjmlp 4y agoLots of them, people only have to look beyond Java and C#. Many of those "functional" features like LINQ, were already present in Smalltalk collections and CLU. As for what inovations, OOPSLA, ECOOP, ACM, IEEE proceedings have plenty of research papers on the matter.
- revskill 4y agoNot quite, people think in Inheritance instead.
- pjmlp 4y agohttps://www.sigplan.org/Conferences/OOPSLA/ https://www.sigplan.org/Conferences/OOPSLA/