Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming (2016)

Re:Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming (2016) by thorell on Friday April 27, 2018 @04:05PM (#16943850)

I feel like the author doesn't understand the design part of OOD. Yes, you can inherit yourself into rigidity. OOP doesn't prevent you from making design choices that turn out to be bad, or are bad in the first place.

You can't reuse a class without reusing the whole world? That's the purpose of dependency injection and depending on interfaces instead of implementation. Decoupling.

Diamond problem? Okay, granted. But this still solvable in most languages with interfaces.

I'm not really drinking the OO Kool-Aid here. I lean functional when I get the chance, but this article reads like someone who's against rope because they hanged themselves.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming (2016) by tabtab on Friday April 27, 2018 @07:42PM (#16945281)

If you have to tell too many people that they are "not doing it right", then perhaps its too hard to do it right. If you build a paradigm that only Sheldon Cooper can get right and complain when non-Sheldon's "can't use it right", there is a bigger problem. It was supposed to make software design easier and "more natural". If it takes lots of training to get right, that's not "natural".

In general, I find OOP fairly well suited for building utilitarian API's, but NOT for domain modelling. Domain modelling is where OOP failed bigly. When UI/GUI's got more complex, they outgrew OOP's ability also and became a mess. There seems to be a size/scope limit to OOP of subject matter.

[ Parent | on HN ]