4 ms·
> It is hard to say that Java or any other imperative language is OO after seeing Smalltalk/Pharo. This. It so frustrates me to see people trash talk on "OOP"
by travisgriggs 3y ago
> It is hard to say that Java or any other imperative language is OO after seeing Smalltalk/Pharo.
This.
It so frustrates me to see people trash talk on "OOP" in HN and other forums, where I know people never really got to really realize what it could really be about. Just hacky approximations.
I'm sure that functional silver bullet will avoid this cycle some how. /s
- capableweb 3y agoI think that's true for most paradigms. Most people see .prototype and the end-all-be-all of Prototypal Inheritance and base everything they think they know about it, from how a frontend from the early 2000s was coded. They work through some lisp book in school, have an exam and think that's all lisp development can give you. Same for functional programming, where most "we love functional programming" companies just compose some small-ish functions in a chain and call it a day. Everything that is initially niche, finds a good fit and becomes "mainstream" or even a bit popular, tends to be mushed into some other paradigm while getting there.
- Rietty 3y agoCould you give a good example of functional programming that does not follow that method? I am very interested.
- koito17 3y agoThis is one of my biggest frustrations about online programming discussions. The vast majority of complaints about OOP I've seen online are really complaints about Java and C++, and many of the problems are simply not present in Common Lisp or Smalltalk.