Computer Sciences Courses That Don't Exist, but Should

Re:Computer Sciences Courses That Don't Exist, but Should by sklogic on Saturday September 12, 2015 @05:17AM (#10207652)

I am not talking about any "cool features" in particular. My point is that for the large systems you need a decent module system and namespaces, not the OOP.

The fact that most of the statically typed OO languages also provide these features does not mean that OO is suitable for scalability - this is totally orthogonal to OOP.

This is a fallacy similar to attributing pattern matching and ADTs to the functional programming, while these features are not inherently functional in any way.

Try to build a large system in a dynamically typed OO language to see why OO per se is of no use for a large scale architecture at all.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Computer Sciences Courses That Don't Exist, but Should by solomatov on Saturday September 12, 2015 @07:22PM (#10209744)

I think, you are making mistake here. You shouldn't treat objects as objects, but as instances of modules. If you see it this way, everything looks much better in OO languages.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Computer Sciences Courses That Don't Exist, but Should by sklogic on Sunday September 13, 2015 @05:46AM (#10210820)

Why do I need any OO in the first place, if the only value they can offer is in a poor man substitute for modules? I'd rather use the proper modules instead, with generic (i.e., inherently anti-OO) features.

[ Parent | on HN ]