4 ms·
I've found some places where OO works (the traditional UI widgets still tend to work pretty well) And that's where OO initially gained traction. At the time, U
by pradocchia 14y ago
I've found some places where OO works (the traditional UI widgets still tend to work pretty well)
And that's where OO initially gained traction. At the time, UI was a major pain. OO was a good fit. UI elements have state, and can do things. Bundling them together made a lot of sense. Inheritance also worked well, as all the objects were purely artificial creations. They were precisely how one chose to define them in code.
Problem was, the rest of the world is not like UI widgets. The main difference being, it has a reality external to the code. State and behavior are not so obviously bundled into types and instances. Verbs are sometimes more important the nouns.
But OO had been sooo successful w/ UI widgets, that many people hoped to repeat that success more widely. OO also provided an easy way to dumb things down--"everything is an object" obscures all the hard questions--just start with objects, and keep writing code until the thing works.
- UK-AL 14y ago"But OO had been sooo successful w/ UI widgets, that many people hoped to repeat that success more widely. OO also provided an easy way to dumb things down--"everything is an object" obscures all the hard questions--just start with objects, and keep writing code until the thing works." That's a silly argument. It could be applied to almost any programming language. Just start with functions... The hard choices are what data structures, and algorithms to use and OO does not get rid of that.