5 ms·
Over the years I've come to realize the the 'P' in OOP is not important at all. What you technically can or cannot do in a given programming language isn't real
by pan69 12y ago
Over the years I've come to realize the the 'P' in OOP is not important at all. What you technically can or cannot do in a given programming language isn't really that important. In my opinion it should be OOT where 'T' stands for "thinking". To be able to "think" in objects is so much more important and beneficial than to understand some technical language construct.
- seanmcdirmid 12y agoObject thinking is actually a word (and also a book [1], but that is less important); and I agree. A definition of OOP and FP that focuses on how programmers are guided to solve problems would be much more useful. With OOP, you think in terms of objects and their interactions (names and naturalism rule). With FP, you are supposed to think more about the math of the program's universe (structure and equational reasoning rules), or maybe its just about the verbs and processes (for less pure styles). [1] http://www.amazon.com/Object-Thinking-Developer-Reference-David/dp/0735619654 http://www.amazon.com/Object-Thinking-Developer-Reference-Da...
- sklogic 12y agoHow could it be "beneficial" to artificially limit your thinking into such a narrow, mostly useless, alien framework? How can one see the world in all of its endless variety as a boring and irrelevant set of hierarchical taxonomies of message-passing entities?
- TeMPOraL 12y agoYes, that was something that always bugged me. I find it hard to model the real world using OOP constructs - something OOP was advertised as well-suited for.