3 ms·
"... only makes sense once you're working on a codebase too big to understand." My aim is to never reach this point. When I can no longer understand it, it's
by gwu78 13y ago
"... only makes sense once you're working on a codebase too big to understand."
My aim is to never reach this point. When I can no longer understand it, it's too big.
That said, I will remain curious about OO.
- lmm 13y agoNo-one fully understands their programs; even if you understand all the code, few people understand the language implementation, fewer understand the underlying OS libraries, and I'm pretty sure no-one understands every level of the hardware (I've seen guys who were lead on some section of an Intel processor say they didn't understand the whole thing). Now sure, you can say that when a single code project becomes too big to understand then it should be split up into a bunch of libraries, or a bunch of independent services. Which is true up to a point. But I find there's value in having a more granular continuum of decoupling scales - method, class, package, module, library, service - which OO makes possible. And I'd argue that many of these kind of libraries and services - particularly the REST style - are inherently OO.
- gwu78 13y agoI more drawn to assembly languages than OO languages. Less granules to deal with. :) I welcome limitation. It is what fuels my creativity. I make no attempt to persuade others to mimic my personal tastes.