3 ms·

I really wish programming would get over its "OOP style" madness. If you are writing C++ or even Java that uses, rather than creates, an object hierarchy, then

I really wish programming would get over its "OOP style" madness. If you are writing C++ or even Java that uses, rather than creates, an object hierarchy, then just write in procedural style with functional decomposition.

mikhailfranco 12y ago
Yes, several of the original issues relating to mutual incomprehension would be solved if: - scientists took a little time to read about design patterns - programmers did not use design patterns gratuitously
leephillips 12y ago
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at, but I think I try to do this when I use Python: I never create classes, but write in as functional a style as possible. The problem is that I seem to be fighting with most of the libraries that I use, because they are all written by good, normal Python programmers who use the OO features of the language. You can't really use their methods as if they were pure functions, because they're not: they mutate arguments and have all kinds of side effects, often undocumented.
- zo1 12y ago
  It's called encapsulation/abstraction. You're not supposed to know the internal state of a class, and you shouldn't care if it's changing. The fact that you're complaining about that means you're not using those provided classes correctly. It's like complaining that a car isn't driving properly on ice. And that's because it wasn't meant to drive on ice, but rather on non-slippery surfaces. Perhaps you shouldn't try to pigeon-hole classes that were made for normal OO usage into your functional tastes.
  - leephillips 12y ago
    I think everything you say here is correct. It sounded as if the comment I was replying to was recommending a practice that I've tried to follow, and I was explaining how trying use a functional style in an OO ecosystem caused me problems. "You're not supposed to know the internal state of a class, and you shouldn't care if it's changing." A recent headache was caused by trying to use a library (forgive the vagueness, I don't want to pick on anybody) that interfaced with an external service. One method was documented as returning a piece of information that had been previously stored in the main object through which you interact with the service. But when you invoke it the library makes additional API calls to the service and changes other data in the object. If you use the method in some expression that calls it 20 times it will make the set of API calls 20 times. There is no way to know this (ahead of time) unless you read the code. It's not documented because "You're not supposed to know the internal state of a class, and you shouldn't care if it's changing.". The author made assumptions about why you were using the method and what you were going to do next. So what appears to be a function for retrieving a single value actually returns several values, returning one as a result, stuffing others silently into an object, and initiating network activity. This kind of lack of orthogonality and hiding behavior from the programmer is what motivates me to learn functional programming and avoid OO systems - although I understand they are a good match for programming GUIs and similar things.
htns 12y ago
Yeah. Most scientists are doing mathematics, not programming. Somehow math has done just fine without developing the patterns you see in programming. It's as if they weren't necessary in the domain.

mikhailfranco 12y ago

Yes, several of the original issues relating to mutual incomprehension would be solved if: - scientists took a little time to read about design patterns - programmers did not use design patterns gratuitously

leephillips 12y ago

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at, but I think I try to do this when I use Python: I never create classes, but write in as functional a style as possible. The problem is that I seem to be fighting with most of the libraries that I use, because they are all written by good, normal Python programmers who use the OO features of the language. You can't really use their methods as if they were pure functions, because they're not: they mutate arguments and have all kinds of side effects, often undocumented.

zo1 12y ago
It's called encapsulation/abstraction. You're not supposed to know the internal state of a class, and you shouldn't care if it's changing. The fact that you're complaining about that means you're not using those provided classes correctly. It's like complaining that a car isn't driving properly on ice. And that's because it wasn't meant to drive on ice, but rather on non-slippery surfaces. Perhaps you shouldn't try to pigeon-hole classes that were made for normal OO usage into your functional tastes.
- leephillips 12y ago
  I think everything you say here is correct. It sounded as if the comment I was replying to was recommending a practice that I've tried to follow, and I was explaining how trying use a functional style in an OO ecosystem caused me problems. "You're not supposed to know the internal state of a class, and you shouldn't care if it's changing." A recent headache was caused by trying to use a library (forgive the vagueness, I don't want to pick on anybody) that interfaced with an external service. One method was documented as returning a piece of information that had been previously stored in the main object through which you interact with the service. But when you invoke it the library makes additional API calls to the service and changes other data in the object. If you use the method in some expression that calls it 20 times it will make the set of API calls 20 times. There is no way to know this (ahead of time) unless you read the code. It's not documented because "You're not supposed to know the internal state of a class, and you shouldn't care if it's changing.". The author made assumptions about why you were using the method and what you were going to do next. So what appears to be a function for retrieving a single value actually returns several values, returning one as a result, stuffing others silently into an object, and initiating network activity. This kind of lack of orthogonality and hiding behavior from the programmer is what motivates me to learn functional programming and avoid OO systems - although I understand they are a good match for programming GUIs and similar things.

htns 12y ago

Yeah. Most scientists are doing mathematics, not programming. Somehow math has done just fine without developing the patterns you see in programming. It's as if they weren't necessary in the domain.