3 ms·

To follow up on gruseom's comment that YMMV, I would point you to Joe Armstrong's (Erlang creator) "Why OO Sucks"[1]. The title isn't great, and you may hate th

To follow up on gruseom's comment that YMMV, I would point you to Joe Armstrong's (Erlang creator) "Why OO Sucks"[1]. The title isn't great, and you may hate the content, but the interesting thing (to me) is that he makes a lot of the same basic points as you and then he draws all the opposite conclusions. Maybe a reasonable conclusion is that there is no silver bullet for managing complexity and making things easier to reason about. [1]: http://www.sics.se/~joe/bluetail/vol1/v1_oo.html http://www.sics.se/~joe/bluetail/vol1/v1_oo.html

Alexandervn 15y ago
That's a really interesting article. Too bad the <title> of that document is 'Test page', making it practically unfindable with Google, SEO-wise.
loup-vaillant 15y ago
No silver bullet? Check this out: http://vpri.org/html/work/ifnct.htm http://vpri.org/html/work/ifnct.htm They already have some results: http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2011004_steps11.pdf http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2011004_steps11.pdf To sum it up, they do "personal computing" in about 4 orders of magnitude less code than current mainstream systems (from more than 200 millions lines to about 20,000). That includes the self-implementing compilers. The only thing they left out was the device drivers (which by the way takes less than 0.5% the size of current systems). Now the Complexity Werewolf just went from "Unspeakably Awful Indescribable Horror" to "Cute puppy".