4 ms·
> If that kind of extremism was applied in discussion of other paradigms, we'd be excluding mention of "hybrid languages" like C++ from discussions of Object Or
by evincarofautumn 12y ago
> If that kind of extremism was applied in discussion of other paradigms, we'd be excluding mention of "hybrid languages" like C++ from discussions of Object Oriented Programming.
If I had mentioned exclusion, yes. C++ is mentioned at OOP conferences like ECOOP and OOPSLA as often as Scala is mentioned at FP conferences like ICFP, CUFP, and Lambdahack. But I have little doubt that a strawman proponent of a pure-OOP language such as Smalltalk—or Self or Ruby or Java or whichever language embodies the definition of OOP you prefer—would be as miffed about the use of C++ in lieu of their preferred language as hibikir’s friend’s strawman Haskeller is about Scala.
And anecdotally, the top C++ developers I’ve worked with didn’t have anything good to say about object-oriented programming anyway.
- pjmlp 12y ago> And anecdotally, the top C++ developers I’ve worked with didn’t have anything good to say about object-oriented programming anyway. It is hard to get a good grasp of OO in C++, if you don't experience pure OO languages, at least for some time. Multi-paradigm languages like C++ are great, but that power can work against learning a specific paradigm properly. Good program design, regardless of the paradigm requires experience and the ability to use the tools that expose paradigm best practices.
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago> the top C++ developers I’ve worked with didn’t have anything good to say about object-oriented programming anyway. Which makes sense. C++'s support for OOP is pretty painful. It would be like hating functional programming because of being exposed to it in APL.
- dragonwriter 12y ago> If I had mentioned exclusion, yes. You provided an explanation for a why people "barely tolerated" (i.e., preferred to exclude) mention of hybrid languages at FP confrerences.