3 ms·

Straw man. The point of contention regards ease of reasoning not completeness or ability to model the physical world.

• thesz 4y ago
  Define "ease of reasoning," then you can accuse others of "straw man" attack. OOP does not even consider effects in it's reasoning. You can do anything with the state of an object and whatever that object can reach through references. The changes are not atomic, they are allowed to be (temporarily) inconsistent. In my book, this is opposite of ease of reasoning. You can change something that will shoot the user of your program much down the line and do that without any hiccup.
  • shanebellone 4y ago
    "Define "ease of reasoning," then you can accuse others of "straw man" attack." Capable of being retained both as individual components and aggregate system. My reply which the other user is replying to specifically quotes ease of reasoning from the parent comment. You're also conflating implementation with conceptualization. I was only noting that OOP is easy for me. It fits my system and worldview. I did not generalize that experience to a larger population.
    • thesz 4y ago
      "Capable of being retained both..." is not a definition, it is a property, at best.
      • shanebellone 4y ago
        wtf?