4 ms·

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

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