5 ms·

> "OOP is made for large teams" "you're not using it as intended" "its not made to model your domain hierarchy" Are there actual references for those quotes? W

by igouy 1y ago

> "OOP is made for large teams" "you're not using it as intended" "its not made to model your domain hierarchy" Are there actual references for those quotes? Were they said by some kind-of expert or by a sales person or by cousin John? Are they strawmen set-up to knock-down.

bevyenjoyer 1y ago
I highlighted "OOP is made for large teams", right clicked, clicked "Search Google for ..." and found the answer almost immediately. Give it a shot!
- igouy 1y ago
  1) 'AI Overview "No, it's not strictly true that Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) is exclusively made for large teams, but it does offer significant advantages in such environments."' 2) 'Casey Muratori -- The Big OOPs: Anatomy of a Thirty-five' Still no reliable reference.
  - db48x 1y ago
    You’ll get better results if you just search for “OOP large teams” rather than the specific phrase used in the video. You’ll get results like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming#Popularity_and_reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming#Po... that point to specific references such as https://www.paulgraham.com/noop.html https://www.paulgraham.com/noop.html which says: Object-oriented programming is popular in big companies, because it suits the way they write software. At big companies, software tends to be written by large (and frequently changing) teams of mediocre programmers. Object-oriented programming imposes a discipline on these programmers that prevents any one of them from doing too much damage.
    - Jtsummers 1y ago
      He spends the first half of his presentation debunking the meme that OO was created for working with teams, not that it happens to be good for working with teams. Your quoted bit is not evidence of someone making the first claim, only the second.
    - igouy 1y ago
      > You’ll get better results if you just search for That isn't what @bevyenjoyer told me to do. Moving goal posts. That's why it's important for the OP to provide a reference, so from the beginning we are all talking about the same thing.
      - db48x 1y ago
        This is not moving the goal posts. Different people making the same claim may use different phrasing, and Google very much has recency bias. By searching for something slightly different we deprioritize the video we’ve already seen.
        igouy 1y ago
        It is not moving the goal posts. It is moving goal posts.
        Jtsummers 1y ago
        It's not the same claim. Muratori's statement (that he debunks in his talk): OO was created for teams. Graham's statement: OO is useful for teams. Those are distinct concepts, there's lots of evidence of statements like Graham's out there, and you've helpfully provided one. What igouy is asking for is evidence of the former claim.
        db48x 1y ago
        A primary source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ahvzDzKdB0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ahvzDzKdB0
        Jtsummers 1y ago
        The only place "team" shows up in the transcript is here: > So. Language design is not at all the same kind of work it was thirty years ago, or twenty years ago. Back then, you could set out to design a whole language and then build it by your own self, or with a small team, because it was small and because what you would then do with it was small. Which is not about OO at all. Got an actual quote or is this link really just an interesting but irrelevant non sequitur? EDIT: For those coming in later who don't feel like clicking random Youtube links, parent post is referencing Steele's talk "Growing a Language".
db48x 1y ago
Seriously? Just open any trade rag from the last 40 or 50 years.
- igouy 1y ago
  So it was a sales pitch? And we would have blindly believed the sales pitch because …? (I asked for actual references for those quotes so we don't waste time with moving goal posts.)
Greduan 1y ago
Oh if only you watched the presentation, where he quotes Bjarne Stroustrup and Alan Kay xD
- igouy 1y ago
  Oh if only you watched you could share.
- igouy 1y ago
  Here's one of the Alan Kay quotes — "Unfortunately, inheritance — though an incredibly powerful technique — has turned out to be very difficult for novices (and even professionals) to deal with." Alan Kay, The Early History of Smalltalk, page 82 That's taken from a section which reflects on introducing programming to children in the summer of '73 — In part, what we were seeing was the "hacker phenomenon", that for any given pursuit, a particular 5% of the population will jump into it naturally, while the 80% or so who can learn it in time do not find it natural. … it is likely that this area is more like writing than we wanted it to be. Namely, for the "80%", it really has to be learned gradually over a period of years in order to build up the structures that need to be there for design and solution look-ahead. - Here's how that Alan Kay quote is used in The Big OOPs — 13:47 -- It's because 10 years earlier, he was already saying he kind of soured on it. He's like, inheritance was like really powerful, but people just didn't know how to use it. Novices and experts apparently both couldn't use it, right. It was just uh you know, it's really good, but no one can figure out how to use it, I guess. Uh so that's a little bit weird. - Not "kind-of-soured on it" one page later — There were a variety of strong desires for a real inheritance mechanism from Adele and me, from Larry Tesler, who was working on desktop publishing, and from the grad students. page 83 - Not "kind-of-soured on it" but wanting a "comprehensive and clean multiple inheritance scheme" — A word about inheritance. … By the time Smalltalk-76 came along, Dan Ingalls had come up with a scheme that was Simula-like in it's semantics but could be incrementally changed on the fly to be in accord with our goals of close interaction. I was not completely thrilled with it because it seemed that we needed a better theory about inheritance entirely (and still do). … But no comprehensive and clean multiple inheritance scheme appeared that was compelling enough to surmount Dan's original Simula-like design. page 84

by igouy 1y ago

bevyenjoyer 1y ago

I highlighted "OOP is made for large teams", right clicked, clicked "Search Google for ..." and found the answer almost immediately. Give it a shot!

igouy 1y ago
1) 'AI Overview "No, it's not strictly true that Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) is exclusively made for large teams, but it does offer significant advantages in such environments."' 2) 'Casey Muratori -- The Big OOPs: Anatomy of a Thirty-five' Still no reliable reference.
- db48x 1y ago
  You’ll get better results if you just search for “OOP large teams” rather than the specific phrase used in the video. You’ll get results like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming#Popularity_and_reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming#Po... that point to specific references such as https://www.paulgraham.com/noop.html https://www.paulgraham.com/noop.html which says: Object-oriented programming is popular in big companies, because it suits the way they write software. At big companies, software tends to be written by large (and frequently changing) teams of mediocre programmers. Object-oriented programming imposes a discipline on these programmers that prevents any one of them from doing too much damage.
  - Jtsummers 1y ago
    He spends the first half of his presentation debunking the meme that OO was created for working with teams, not that it happens to be good for working with teams. Your quoted bit is not evidence of someone making the first claim, only the second.
  - igouy 1y ago
    > You’ll get better results if you just search for That isn't what @bevyenjoyer told me to do. Moving goal posts. That's why it's important for the OP to provide a reference, so from the beginning we are all talking about the same thing.
    - db48x 1y ago
      This is not moving the goal posts. Different people making the same claim may use different phrasing, and Google very much has recency bias. By searching for something slightly different we deprioritize the video we’ve already seen.
      - igouy 1y ago
        It is not moving the goal posts. It is moving goal posts.
      - Jtsummers 1y ago
        It's not the same claim. Muratori's statement (that he debunks in his talk): OO was created for teams. Graham's statement: OO is useful for teams. Those are distinct concepts, there's lots of evidence of statements like Graham's out there, and you've helpfully provided one. What igouy is asking for is evidence of the former claim.
        db48x 1y ago
        A primary source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ahvzDzKdB0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ahvzDzKdB0
        Jtsummers 1y ago
        The only place "team" shows up in the transcript is here: > So. Language design is not at all the same kind of work it was thirty years ago, or twenty years ago. Back then, you could set out to design a whole language and then build it by your own self, or with a small team, because it was small and because what you would then do with it was small. Which is not about OO at all. Got an actual quote or is this link really just an interesting but irrelevant non sequitur? EDIT: For those coming in later who don't feel like clicking random Youtube links, parent post is referencing Steele's talk "Growing a Language".

db48x 1y ago

Seriously? Just open any trade rag from the last 40 or 50 years.

igouy 1y ago
So it was a sales pitch? And we would have blindly believed the sales pitch because …? (I asked for actual references for those quotes so we don't waste time with moving goal posts.)

Greduan 1y ago

Oh if only you watched the presentation, where he quotes Bjarne Stroustrup and Alan Kay xD

igouy 1y ago
Oh if only you watched you could share.
igouy 1y ago
Here's one of the Alan Kay quotes — "Unfortunately, inheritance — though an incredibly powerful technique — has turned out to be very difficult for novices (and even professionals) to deal with." Alan Kay, The Early History of Smalltalk, page 82 That's taken from a section which reflects on introducing programming to children in the summer of '73 — In part, what we were seeing was the "hacker phenomenon", that for any given pursuit, a particular 5% of the population will jump into it naturally, while the 80% or so who can learn it in time do not find it natural. … it is likely that this area is more like writing than we wanted it to be. Namely, for the "80%", it really has to be learned gradually over a period of years in order to build up the structures that need to be there for design and solution look-ahead. - Here's how that Alan Kay quote is used in The Big OOPs — 13:47 -- It's because 10 years earlier, he was already saying he kind of soured on it. He's like, inheritance was like really powerful, but people just didn't know how to use it. Novices and experts apparently both couldn't use it, right. It was just uh you know, it's really good, but no one can figure out how to use it, I guess. Uh so that's a little bit weird. - Not "kind-of-soured on it" one page later — There were a variety of strong desires for a real inheritance mechanism from Adele and me, from Larry Tesler, who was working on desktop publishing, and from the grad students. page 83 - Not "kind-of-soured on it" but wanting a "comprehensive and clean multiple inheritance scheme" — A word about inheritance. … By the time Smalltalk-76 came along, Dan Ingalls had come up with a scheme that was Simula-like in it's semantics but could be incrementally changed on the fly to be in accord with our goals of close interaction. I was not completely thrilled with it because it seemed that we needed a better theory about inheritance entirely (and still do). … But no comprehensive and clean multiple inheritance scheme appeared that was compelling enough to surmount Dan's original Simula-like design. page 84