2 ms·
>more coupling and layers of indirection actually, OO claims less coupling. as to layers of indirection, i don't think it claims anything. > OO says implicitl
by zabzonk 4y ago
>more coupling and layers of indirection
actually, OO claims less coupling. as to layers of indirection, i don't think it claims anything.
> OO says implicitly says "objects are always worth the cost"
don't know where you get this "always" from - objects are sometimes, maybe even often worth "the cost" (which is small), but not "always"
- stonemetal12 4y agoIn Java "public final class Math extends Object". So yeah, some parts of OO land went "always". I think that is way to far. As far as I am concerned Objects have their uses. Files in Haskell and the sequence abstraction in Clojure look like objects in everything but name to me.
- zabzonk 4y agoof course it is too far, which is why other languages don't do it, though they use objects elsewhere
- nh23423fefe 4y agoBut thats irrelevant. You can't instantiate that class so what does it matter. How should it be different?