throwawayplz

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by throwawayplz 15y ago

   No argument here - not arguing against data structures, or standards for manipulating them. Mostly saying I prefer "Programs that operate on ASTs" than "ASTs have methods to operate on themselves."
2. 2.▲
   by throwawayplz 15y ago

   Thanks for the info - I'll give Smalltalk a look.
3. 3.▲
   by throwawayplz 15y ago

   The consistent interface point is well taken, and I think that's the main reason for OO's commercial success. If you force everyone to be verbose in their interface definitions, code is far less likely to break across distributed teams of d
4. 4.▲
   by throwawayplz 15y ago

   I suppose my allergy is to the verbosity and code vomit that comes out in most production java/C++ and even OO Python code I've seen. In C I would use structs and pass around pointers, then have functions that take those as arguments. This
5. 5.▲
   by throwawayplz 15y ago

   bingo. In my mind, a program is something that accepts input, does some processing on that input, and produces output. To me, the "programming" should revolve around the processing, rather than around the internal representation of the inpu
6. 6.▲
   by throwawayplz 15y ago

   Maybe a little hard to describe, but why should everything be an object? Why should everything I want to operate on have to have methods? Etc. I actually really see the benefit of inheritance in many OO settings, in that it encourages abstr
7. 7.▲
   Why don't I like objects?

   10 points by throwawayplz 15y ago|23 comments