4 ms·

Object Oriented Programming is an expensive disaster which must end

8 points by felineflock 1y ago

scrapheap 1y ago
I couldn't get through this - I suspect it's because I decided a long time ago to make the effort to stop thinking of programming paradigm's as any one language, and instead to think of them in more abstract terms. That's really helped me to know when one paradigm or another would be better for the task at hand (There are tasks that are easier to think about from an OOP perspective and others that are easier to use a functional or imperative approach).
- pjmlp 1y ago
  That is the thing, Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs
- wolvesechoes 1y ago
  > (There are tasks that are easier to think about from an OOP perspective and others that are easier to use a functional or imperative approach). This is why I think that Rust, although clearly is a step forward in many aspects, is also backwards due to superstitions like "inheritance bad".
pjmlp 1y ago
I won't ever bother to read, yet another one of those rants that fails to understand, with exception of C and Assembly, all major mainstream languages support OOP in some form or fashion, and is mostly a lack of understanding of CS background than anything else.
- mdrob2205a 1y ago
  "I haven't read it, but I disagree so the article is both wrong and stupid" is definitely my favourite genre of internet comment.
  - pjmlp 1y ago
    Definitely, eventually reading about why OOP is the worst thing that plagues the industry every other month gets tiresome.
    - felineflock 1y ago
      Where are you seeing so many "OOP worst thing"? The only other one I've seen here was 8 months ago and had many other posts like "OOP not that bad actually".
      - pjmlp 1y ago
        All over social media, it isn't only HN. Reddit, Substack, Medium, Podcasts, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Xing, Mastodom, BlueSky,..... there is always an opinion somewhere.
Rochus 1y ago
(2014) A passionate essay, which overstates its case, relies on anecdotal or selective evidence, and employs rhetorical strategies that weaken its objectivity. The strongest points are its identification of fallacious reasoning in OOP advocacy and its call to consider alternatives. But it doesn't consider that the same kind of criticism applies to all method hypes; if you look at FP or Agile or present advocacy that promise you heaven on earth and the solution to all problems if you use e.g. Rust, it's no better than the garbage promised by OO marketing at the time.
karmakaze 1y ago
You could get rid of all the OOP and keep shared mutable state and you wouldn't be any better off. Possibly worse because you don't even have OOP patterns to follow and find where problems arise. Most don't even do OOP right--instead of "tell don't ask", writing Banana-Gorilla-Jungle methods.
- ashoeafoot 1y ago
  But you can not do it right. In the end the programmer apoears, modelling himself as conductor into his miniature world. The marshaller, the processcontroller, the command sender, was you thinking procedural all along.
  - pjmlp 1y ago
    Many modern haters missed the procedural/module version of that with stuff like Yourdon structured method. The lack of understanding why modules eventually grew up to become objects, and the various ways that industry and academia came up to do such evolution since the 1970's wasn't because it is cool, fashionable,... Eventually modules want to be variables, dynamically loadable and passed around, while being represented on the type system.
ashoeafoot 1y ago
I hate OOP with a passion, but intellectual honesty forces me to admit its strength . OOP is tailored to the human mental model. He who can form a sentence , can model object orientated. Its intuitive and helps even disorganised people to diacover code and organize problemd, by mimicking the physical world.
danjl 1y ago
It kind of doesn't matter whether the author's view is correct. Their adherence to a screed undermines the argument so much it becomes irrelevant.

8 points by felineflock 1y ago

I couldn't get through this - I suspect it's because I decided a long time ago to make the effort to stop thinking of programming paradigm's as any one language, and instead to think of them in more abstract terms. That's really helped me to know when one paradigm or another would be better for the task at hand (There are tasks that are easier to think about from an OOP perspective and others that are easier to use a functional or imperative approach).

pjmlp 1y ago
That is the thing, Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs
wolvesechoes 1y ago
> (There are tasks that are easier to think about from an OOP perspective and others that are easier to use a functional or imperative approach). This is why I think that Rust, although clearly is a step forward in many aspects, is also backwards due to superstitions like "inheritance bad".

pjmlp 1y ago

I won't ever bother to read, yet another one of those rants that fails to understand, with exception of C and Assembly, all major mainstream languages support OOP in some form or fashion, and is mostly a lack of understanding of CS background than anything else.

mdrob2205a 1y ago
"I haven't read it, but I disagree so the article is both wrong and stupid" is definitely my favourite genre of internet comment.
- pjmlp 1y ago
  Definitely, eventually reading about why OOP is the worst thing that plagues the industry every other month gets tiresome.
  - felineflock 1y ago
    Where are you seeing so many "OOP worst thing"? The only other one I've seen here was 8 months ago and had many other posts like "OOP not that bad actually".
    - pjmlp 1y ago
      All over social media, it isn't only HN. Reddit, Substack, Medium, Podcasts, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Xing, Mastodom, BlueSky,..... there is always an opinion somewhere.

Rochus 1y ago

(2014) A passionate essay, which overstates its case, relies on anecdotal or selective evidence, and employs rhetorical strategies that weaken its objectivity. The strongest points are its identification of fallacious reasoning in OOP advocacy and its call to consider alternatives. But it doesn't consider that the same kind of criticism applies to all method hypes; if you look at FP or Agile or present advocacy that promise you heaven on earth and the solution to all problems if you use e.g. Rust, it's no better than the garbage promised by OO marketing at the time.

karmakaze 1y ago

You could get rid of all the OOP and keep shared mutable state and you wouldn't be any better off. Possibly worse because you don't even have OOP patterns to follow and find where problems arise. Most don't even do OOP right--instead of "tell don't ask", writing Banana-Gorilla-Jungle methods.

ashoeafoot 1y ago
But you can not do it right. In the end the programmer apoears, modelling himself as conductor into his miniature world. The marshaller, the processcontroller, the command sender, was you thinking procedural all along.
- pjmlp 1y ago
  Many modern haters missed the procedural/module version of that with stuff like Yourdon structured method. The lack of understanding why modules eventually grew up to become objects, and the various ways that industry and academia came up to do such evolution since the 1970's wasn't because it is cool, fashionable,... Eventually modules want to be variables, dynamically loadable and passed around, while being represented on the type system.

ashoeafoot 1y ago

I hate OOP with a passion, but intellectual honesty forces me to admit its strength . OOP is tailored to the human mental model. He who can form a sentence , can model object orientated. Its intuitive and helps even disorganised people to diacover code and organize problemd, by mimicking the physical world.

danjl 1y ago

It kind of doesn't matter whether the author's view is correct. Their adherence to a screed undermines the argument so much it becomes irrelevant.