3 ms·
It's only the mindset of a cult when the theory in question is not demonstrated to work or is not predicated on reason. Suppose I wrote a catapult simulator to
by fruchtose 15y ago
It's only the mindset of a cult when the theory in question is not demonstrated to work or is not predicated on reason. Suppose I wrote a catapult simulator to test the validity of designs for a competition, and then my simulator ignored physical attributes such as wind speed, material strength, elevation, and weight. The physics being used have been known by the modern world for centuries, but I haven't applied enough of that theory to create a valid simulator.
I do not make any similar claim about the validity of object-oriented programming, but I find your argument as a reaction to my comment rather silly. People make mistakes in paradigms all the time. Read The Daily WTF is you want to observe how badly people can mangle code. I'm not suggesting that all your problems with OOP can be solved by using more OOP, just as I'm not saying that the chance hat a programmer will misunderstand for-loops in Lisp means that we should throw out functional programming.
- ZenPsycho 15y agoYour physics example is not a good analogy, because your critique of the simulation is not that the hypothetical didn't use enough physics, but instead you point out a number of very specific physical attributes that were missing, and you would have been able to explain the effect each of those attributes would have on the simulation. This is evidence and reason based argument. This is NOT like the argument you used for object oriented programming.
- fruchtose 15y agoI don't know why you think I'm defending OOP. I'm not. My original point was that copy-pasting is not an argument against any programming paradigms. The possibility of programmer error is not a valid argument against using a programming language, just as a person being unskilled at spelling is not a valid reason to criticize English, Mandarin, French, etc.