3 ms·
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 fo
by 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 agoBut 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 agoMany 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.