3 ms·
> I feel object-oriented programming had its chance and it failed. > Object-Oriented Programming is BAD mind elaborating why OOPS is BAD and failure?
by robofanatic 4y ago
> I feel object-oriented programming had its chance and it failed.
> Object-Oriented Programming is BAD
mind elaborating why OOPS is BAD and failure?
- dagss 4y agoI guess I worded things a bit sloppily, OOP can mean a lot of different things too.. The main thing is that working with state is hard. "Objects" is often about representing something stateful and encourages thinking in terms of doing actions to state. It embraces a stateful world-view.. Functional programming I guess is the one popular alternative; but a lot of the benefits of functional programming can also be had in imperative languages, if one e.g. thinks in terms of event sourcing. My definitions; If your object is named UserNameChanged, and you write code to process such events and so on, that is event sourcing. While if you structure your code to say that a "User" has a "Name" property, that is OOP. Focusing on the events, state transitions etc as the first class thing gets you closer to a "stateless" programming model. The Out of the tar pit paper I linked to describes the problems of working with state. And I think Event Sourcing is a more real-world, pragmatic approach to the same problems described in that paper.