4 ms·

Is OOP dead?

12 points by bconway 14y ago

moocow01 14y ago
IMHO barring OOP from CS curriculum is just as ridiculous as basing your entire curriculum on OOP. I can understand certain people's hatred of OOP but it is certainly appropriate in certain circumstances. The most well educated will be those who know when to use a design pattern and when not to.
- pjmlp 14y ago
  I think that people that hate OO, never learned to use it properly.
shadesandcolour 14y ago
First comment: "...At least this way, CMU students will be inoculated against blind indoctrination." Because functional programmers are never trying to indoctrinate you... Right?
lucian303 14y ago
Yes, this is sure to prepare students for the real world. That's a poor choice for both the students and their future.
venomsnake 14y ago
I think that OOP is undead. It will be in its current incarnation a zombie that will live on and on because we have a lot of legacy code. But if you start project from scratch ... there are better approaches. I think that Kay was thinking of objects in the context of messaging and terminating network nodes, not stuff that shares same memory space.
- pjmlp 14y ago
  > But if you start project from scratch ... there are better approaches. In what languages? Except for C, Pascal and pure FP languages, most modern languages are anyway either OO based or multi-paradigm.
jdlshore 14y ago
No. Gustavo Niemeyer Yesterday 10:51 AM Probably a wise decision to introduce people to the idea of programming. I doubt CMU would be making such silly overarching claims, though. In fact, it isn't [1]: _"Our planned 15-214 course on software system construction will have much more extensive coverage of concurrency, as well as object-oriented abstractions. Both of these are key components of most large-scale, distributed software systems."_ "Although object-oriented programming (in its myriad forms) remains a dominant theme in industrial software development, the use of object oriented languages, such as Java, at the introductory level introduces considerable complexity and distracts from the core goals at the introductory level. It seems preferable to give fuller coverage of OO design and implementation methodology to later in the curriculum to allow more focused concentration on basics at the introductory level." [1] http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/2010/CMU-CS-10-140.pdf http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/2010/CMU-CS-10-14...
TeeWEE 14y ago
I think it is good to focus on only one paradigme initially, and functional programming is a good choice. Later they learn other paradigma's and how they can be combined. Good work!
pjmlp 14y ago
Given that all mainstream languages have some form of OO support, it is a bit hard to consider it dead. OO is not the only way to code applications, it all depends on the domain. Additionally I think the future is anyway multi-paradigm.

12 points by bconway 14y ago

IMHO barring OOP from CS curriculum is just as ridiculous as basing your entire curriculum on OOP. I can understand certain people's hatred of OOP but it is certainly appropriate in certain circumstances. The most well educated will be those who know when to use a design pattern and when not to.

pjmlp 14y ago
I think that people that hate OO, never learned to use it properly.

shadesandcolour 14y ago

First comment: "...At least this way, CMU students will be inoculated against blind indoctrination." Because functional programmers are never trying to indoctrinate you... Right?

lucian303 14y ago

Yes, this is sure to prepare students for the real world. That's a poor choice for both the students and their future.

venomsnake 14y ago

I think that OOP is undead. It will be in its current incarnation a zombie that will live on and on because we have a lot of legacy code. But if you start project from scratch ... there are better approaches. I think that Kay was thinking of objects in the context of messaging and terminating network nodes, not stuff that shares same memory space.

pjmlp 14y ago
> But if you start project from scratch ... there are better approaches. In what languages? Except for C, Pascal and pure FP languages, most modern languages are anyway either OO based or multi-paradigm.

jdlshore 14y ago

No. Gustavo Niemeyer Yesterday 10:51 AM Probably a wise decision to introduce people to the idea of programming. I doubt CMU would be making such silly overarching claims, though. In fact, it isn't [1]: _"Our planned 15-214 course on software system construction will have much more extensive coverage of concurrency, as well as object-oriented abstractions. Both of these are key components of most large-scale, distributed software systems."_ "Although object-oriented programming (in its myriad forms) remains a dominant theme in industrial software development, the use of object oriented languages, such as Java, at the introductory level introduces considerable complexity and distracts from the core goals at the introductory level. It seems preferable to give fuller coverage of OO design and implementation methodology to later in the curriculum to allow more focused concentration on basics at the introductory level." [1] http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/2010/CMU-CS-10-140.pdf http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/2010/CMU-CS-10-14...

TeeWEE 14y ago

I think it is good to focus on only one paradigme initially, and functional programming is a good choice. Later they learn other paradigma's and how they can be combined. Good work!

pjmlp 14y ago

Given that all mainstream languages have some form of OO support, it is a bit hard to consider it dead. OO is not the only way to code applications, it all depends on the domain. Additionally I think the future is anyway multi-paradigm.