4 ms·

> What it is about the OOP paradigm that you find does not fit this client->relational database application? It's not me who finds that OOP is a mismatch with

> What it is about the OOP paradigm that you find does not fit this client->relational database application? It's not me who finds that OOP is a mismatch with relational systems. It's me and many other people. Ted Neward talked about this 20 years ago. Jeff Atwood talked about it 18 years ago. Martin Fowler defended OOP from this criticism but at least he also talked about it, 12 years ago. There's a Wikipedia page on the subject and many related articles over the years. This is well-trod ground. Now. Does this mean we critics are right? No. It doesn't mean that. It means that this is well-trod ground. It is the topic of a healthy debate that generates one line of criticism of OOP. Functional programming--which I haven't mentioned in this thread until now--is another source of OOP criticism. What's interesting to me at this particular moment is not the substance of these debates ("is the object-relation impedance mismatch real? is mutable state really bad?") or who's right. What's interesting to me is that author of Sigma's Blog doesn't address any of this. I claim that these two topics--the ostensible object-relational impedance mismatch and the mutable state bugaboo of functional programming--are of such primary importance in generating criticism of OOP that any author who sets out to defend OOP from its critics must address these topics in order to be taken seriously. And yet, all this author says is It seems like a lot of people dislike Object Oriented Programming They don't say who these people are, what their reasons are for disliking OOP, or why things seem this way to the author. They just accuse unnamed "people" of not understanding OOP and then dive into a bog-standard description of OOP which is well-understood by all the relevant programmers that I know. None of that answers your questions on the topic of the object-relational mismatch, of course, but then I never promised to explain that topic to you. I might, but then again I might not. If I don't, there are plenty of resources online that you can study for yourself. If you form a killer argument that addresses all issues once and for all, perhaps you should write your own blog post. Surely such a groundbreaking achievement would be worthy of making it all the way to the front page.

randomdata 3y ago
> It's not me who finds that OOP is a mismatch with relational systems. It's me and many other people. Great, but what is the mismatch you speak of? > Ted Neward talked about this 20 years ago. Jeff Atwood talked about it 18 years ago. Are you referring to the "The Vietnam of Computer Science"? It is about active record and object/relational mapping. OOP, despite the poorly chosen name (which Kay regrets), isn't about objects at all. As is defined, OOP is about "messaging, local retention and protection and hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things." But perhaps there is some other work by these people that I'm not familiar with that speaks to OOP? > It seems like a lot of people dislike Object Oriented Programming Sure. I expect all people dislike object-oriented programming in practice, which is why you never truly see it. Sending a message and maybe getting a response (i.e. extreme late-binding) is cool on a theoretical level, but not exactly practical when it comes to real applications that want to have certain guarantees. The rising love for statically typed languages highlights that people want such guarantees. Ironically, OOP probably only shines for things like client->relational database systems that cannot guarantee the state of the database at compile time. At least the paradigm gets you thinking about what to do when an actor doesn't respond to your message.
- dventimihasura 3y ago
  > Great, but what is the mismatch you speak of? Go do some independent study and then maybe we'll talk.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    Happy to, but it is not clear what I should study. You have not yet indicated what it is about OOP that you are talking about. You keep pointing to the object-relational mismatch, which, while a thing, has no more to do with OOP than it does functional programming. It pertains to object-based programming. That is something else entirely. Understandably, those who don't understand OOP often confuse OOP with object-based programming. Is that the problem here? Just that you don't understand OOP? Fair that fluidity of language means that anyone can define OOP as they wish, and if they want to define OOP to be equivalent to OBP, good for them. They wouldn't be the first. And if we were discussing this topic in a vacuum we could set out a proclamation that defines OOP to be equal to OBP. However, OOP was already and explicitly defined by the article that setup the context for the following discussion, and the definition used is Kay's – the one that has nothing to do with objects. Other definitions for OOP would be clearly off-topic. Perhaps it is that you are purposefully trying to go off-topic? Indeed, this thread started because someone (not me!) questioned exactly that. If it is simply that you don't know how to clarify what you mean, why not just say so?
    - dventimihasura 3y ago
      > Happy to, but it is not clear what I should study. You have not yet indicated what it is about OOP that you are talking about. I don't have to. That's already explained in the standard literature on the topics of the object-relational mismatch and on functional critique of mutable state. > You keep pointing to the object-relational mismatch, which, while a thing, has no more to do with OOP than it does functional programming. It pertains to object-based programming. That is something else entirely. And I say that the object-relational mismatch does have more to do with OOP than it does with functional programming. If you want to make unfounded claims, two can play at that game. > However, OOP was already and explicitly defined by the article that setup the context for the following discussion, and the definition used is Kay's Point to the place on the doll where the article explicitly defines OOP and uses Kay's definition to do it. > Perhaps it is that you are purposefully trying to go off-topic? Indeed, this thread started because someone (not me!) questioned exactly that. And yet that person never came back. You can't rule out the possibility that this person was satisfied by my subsequent clarifications. > If it is simply that you don't know how to clarify what you mean, why not just say so? You first.

randomdata 3y ago

> It's not me who finds that OOP is a mismatch with relational systems. It's me and many other people. Great, but what is the mismatch you speak of? > Ted Neward talked about this 20 years ago. Jeff Atwood talked about it 18 years ago. Are you referring to the "The Vietnam of Computer Science"? It is about active record and object/relational mapping. OOP, despite the poorly chosen name (which Kay regrets), isn't about objects at all. As is defined, OOP is about "messaging, local retention and protection and hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things." But perhaps there is some other work by these people that I'm not familiar with that speaks to OOP? > It seems like a lot of people dislike Object Oriented Programming Sure. I expect all people dislike object-oriented programming in practice, which is why you never truly see it. Sending a message and maybe getting a response (i.e. extreme late-binding) is cool on a theoretical level, but not exactly practical when it comes to real applications that want to have certain guarantees. The rising love for statically typed languages highlights that people want such guarantees. Ironically, OOP probably only shines for things like client->relational database systems that cannot guarantee the state of the database at compile time. At least the paradigm gets you thinking about what to do when an actor doesn't respond to your message.

dventimihasura 3y ago
> Great, but what is the mismatch you speak of? Go do some independent study and then maybe we'll talk.
- randomdata 3y ago
  Happy to, but it is not clear what I should study. You have not yet indicated what it is about OOP that you are talking about. You keep pointing to the object-relational mismatch, which, while a thing, has no more to do with OOP than it does functional programming. It pertains to object-based programming. That is something else entirely. Understandably, those who don't understand OOP often confuse OOP with object-based programming. Is that the problem here? Just that you don't understand OOP? Fair that fluidity of language means that anyone can define OOP as they wish, and if they want to define OOP to be equivalent to OBP, good for them. They wouldn't be the first. And if we were discussing this topic in a vacuum we could set out a proclamation that defines OOP to be equal to OBP. However, OOP was already and explicitly defined by the article that setup the context for the following discussion, and the definition used is Kay's – the one that has nothing to do with objects. Other definitions for OOP would be clearly off-topic. Perhaps it is that you are purposefully trying to go off-topic? Indeed, this thread started because someone (not me!) questioned exactly that. If it is simply that you don't know how to clarify what you mean, why not just say so?
  - dventimihasura 3y ago
    > Happy to, but it is not clear what I should study. You have not yet indicated what it is about OOP that you are talking about. I don't have to. That's already explained in the standard literature on the topics of the object-relational mismatch and on functional critique of mutable state. > You keep pointing to the object-relational mismatch, which, while a thing, has no more to do with OOP than it does functional programming. It pertains to object-based programming. That is something else entirely. And I say that the object-relational mismatch does have more to do with OOP than it does with functional programming. If you want to make unfounded claims, two can play at that game. > However, OOP was already and explicitly defined by the article that setup the context for the following discussion, and the definition used is Kay's Point to the place on the doll where the article explicitly defines OOP and uses Kay's definition to do it. > Perhaps it is that you are purposefully trying to go off-topic? Indeed, this thread started because someone (not me!) questioned exactly that. And yet that person never came back. You can't rule out the possibility that this person was satisfied by my subsequent clarifications. > If it is simply that you don't know how to clarify what you mean, why not just say so? You first.