Re:OOP Is Dead, Long Live OOP
by joering2 on Thursday October 18, 2018 @03:49PM
(#18251533)
Someone with 15 years programming OOP told me once: here is the best way to describe object oriented programming: you asked for object “monkey”, and you got the whole jungle, as well as monkey’s bananas.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
That would be Joe Armstrong:
https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2011/07/19/you-wanted-banana/
Re:OOP Is Dead, Long Live OOP
by DonHopkins on Thursday October 18, 2018 @05:34PM
(#18252331)
You wanted a banana but you got Carmen Miranda.
"That's no banana; that's my nose! Acha cha cha cha!" -Jimmy Durante
I don't really follow this. A fleshed-out example describing the trade-offs is almost mandatory for this kind of criticism since this could be very easily due to a misunderstanding or misapplication of OOP rather than a problem with it.
I don't have enough experience to agree or disagree with the quote you're responding to, but I think the intent was in part to claim that OOP gets misapplied enough that if you're working with a large enough group or company, that's what you'll end up with.
Re:OOP Is Dead, Long Live OOP
by ilovecaching on Thursday October 18, 2018 @03:55PM
(#18251583)
Exactly, you get a tangle of objects and data that's impossible to reason about, and isn't made explicit in the types.
Re:OOP Is Dead, Long Live OOP
by walterstucco on Thursday October 18, 2018 @03:53PM
(#18251565)
You're quoting Joe Armstrong, creator of Erlang
> Because 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.
Steve said it too, but he said it like he was proud of it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk-9Fd2mEnI&feature=youtu.be...
"You need all the objects that come with it to make it work"