4 ms·

I've always had a problem with object orientation and have never embraced it. But none of these quotes (and most dev thinking) seems to share my reasoning. My

by edw519 12y ago

I've always had a problem with object orientation and have never embraced it. But none of these quotes (and most dev thinking) seems to share my reasoning. My problem: almost every argument for or against object orientation is about us, the developers. I rarely hear any arguments that consider our users or customers. Oh sure the usual (and lame), "It helps us serve them better." I long ago lost track of all the lame bullshit (far too many to mention, but you know the culprits) that was supposed to revolutionize the way we build things without ever taking our users into consideration. Most of it was to make developers who couldn't build what was really needed appear as if they could. This has helped consulting firms and enterprise I.T. departments justify their rates and schedules, but has added little to the customers' benefit. If the people who dream this shit up would stop focusing on what we need for 5 minutes and consider what they need, we'd all be way better off. How has object orientation helped my customers? Frankly, I can't think of a thing. Add that quote to this list.

stdbrouw 12y ago
Stating that object orientation doesn't help customers isn't the same as proving it, or even arguing it. How has imperative, or any other kind of programming, helped my customers?
jimmaswell 12y ago
What other way do you help the end users in your language design other than making the language easier to make good products with? Nothing you said makes any sense.
thewarrior 12y ago
I feel that OO imposes some semblance of structure using an intuitive semantics most "average" developers can grok (Not crazy stuff like Monads) , thereby allowing Pointy Haired Bosses to treat devs as commodities to be replaced at will. Java is a language right at the sweet spot on that continuum. Just advanced enough to prevent most stupid bugs but also mediocre enough that most devs can grok it. In the words of one of its creators : "We managed to drag them half way to Lisp" And how would you program an enterprise Java App without object orientation ?
- willismichael 12y ago
  Why does an enterprise app have to be implemented in Java (or any other language with similar semantics)? Just because you can doesn't necessarily mean that it's the best way.
- codygman 12y ago
  > (Not crazy stuff like Monads) Read this and tell me that "crazy stuff like Monads" is an accurate statement: http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/marktoberdorf/baastad.pdf http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/marktoberdorf/ba...
nickbauman 12y ago
Developers are users. In fact you should consider your first user as the developer, since systems are still being written by humans. That said, you're right, object-orientation does not serve the humans. Neither does the semi-colon. Or the for loop. Or ...
dhimes 12y ago
Ideally, unless your customers are other devs, OO has nothing to do with your customers.
d23 12y ago
> How has object orientation helped my customers? Frankly, I can't think of a thing. Add that quote to this list. No. Why? Because it's bad. Not just prosaically, but because you haven't even bothered to make a point. > [...] Most of it was to make developers who couldn't build what was really needed appear as if they could. This has helped consulting firms and enterprise I.T. departments justify their rates and schedules, but has added little to the customers' benefit. It sounds like you think OO: 1) has been overblown to justify high salaries > OO is the “structured programming” snake oil of the 90' and 2) has added needless complexity > “The problem with object-oriented languages is they’ve got all this implicit environment that they carry around with them. You wanted a banana but what you got was a gorilla holding the banana and the entire jungle.” See? Your point was there, it was just actually said in a substantive, humorous way.
- jimmaswell 12y ago
  > “The problem with object-oriented languages is they’ve got all this implicit environment that they carry around with them. You wanted a banana but what you got was a gorilla holding the banana and the entire jungle.” I'd like to see a real case where something like this happened in code. It never happens to me.
altcognito 12y ago
Good RESTful design and web URLs are centered around nouns and objects.

by edw519 12y ago

stdbrouw 12y ago

Stating that object orientation doesn't help customers isn't the same as proving it, or even arguing it. How has imperative, or any other kind of programming, helped my customers?

jimmaswell 12y ago

What other way do you help the end users in your language design other than making the language easier to make good products with? Nothing you said makes any sense.

thewarrior 12y ago

I feel that OO imposes some semblance of structure using an intuitive semantics most "average" developers can grok (Not crazy stuff like Monads) , thereby allowing Pointy Haired Bosses to treat devs as commodities to be replaced at will. Java is a language right at the sweet spot on that continuum. Just advanced enough to prevent most stupid bugs but also mediocre enough that most devs can grok it. In the words of one of its creators : "We managed to drag them half way to Lisp" And how would you program an enterprise Java App without object orientation ?

willismichael 12y ago
Why does an enterprise app have to be implemented in Java (or any other language with similar semantics)? Just because you can doesn't necessarily mean that it's the best way.
codygman 12y ago
> (Not crazy stuff like Monads) Read this and tell me that "crazy stuff like Monads" is an accurate statement: http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/marktoberdorf/baastad.pdf http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/marktoberdorf/ba...

nickbauman 12y ago

Developers are users. In fact you should consider your first user as the developer, since systems are still being written by humans. That said, you're right, object-orientation does not serve the humans. Neither does the semi-colon. Or the for loop. Or ...

dhimes 12y ago

Ideally, unless your customers are other devs, OO has nothing to do with your customers.

d23 12y ago

> How has object orientation helped my customers? Frankly, I can't think of a thing. Add that quote to this list. No. Why? Because it's bad. Not just prosaically, but because you haven't even bothered to make a point. > [...] Most of it was to make developers who couldn't build what was really needed appear as if they could. This has helped consulting firms and enterprise I.T. departments justify their rates and schedules, but has added little to the customers' benefit. It sounds like you think OO: 1) has been overblown to justify high salaries > OO is the “structured programming” snake oil of the 90' and 2) has added needless complexity > “The problem with object-oriented languages is they’ve got all this implicit environment that they carry around with them. You wanted a banana but what you got was a gorilla holding the banana and the entire jungle.” See? Your point was there, it was just actually said in a substantive, humorous way.

jimmaswell 12y ago
> “The problem with object-oriented languages is they’ve got all this implicit environment that they carry around with them. You wanted a banana but what you got was a gorilla holding the banana and the entire jungle.” I'd like to see a real case where something like this happened in code. It never happens to me.

altcognito 12y ago

Good RESTful design and web URLs are centered around nouns and objects.