4 ms·
That's fine. All your points are perfectly valid, but they have nothing to do with OOP, which is what I was referencing.
by jroseattle 14y ago
That's fine. All your points are perfectly valid, but they have nothing to do with OOP, which is what I was referencing.
- Locke1689 14y agoObjects rely on being mutable. An object-oriented language pushes objects everywhere. This pushes mutation everywhere. This is the opposite of corralled. As I said in another comment: Note that you can have objects without OOP. Python has objects. Python is not object-oriented. Same with OCaml or Racket. I'm not arguing against using state. If you're programming a state machine, you may want to model it with state. That would be a pretty good choice. The problem is that OOP says everything is a state machine.