Re:OOP Is Dead, Long Live OOP
by ilovecaching on Thursday October 18, 2018 @04:00PM
(#18251629)
Smalltalk OOP looks almost exactly like Erlang gen_servers and shares a lot of nice properties with them. Unfortunately the concept has been twisted into it's current day meaning that's akin to the OOP we find in Java, C++ etc.
Did you read the stuff between the parentheses?
In fact, I did. But I think it is wrong to judge OOP based on crude implementations. That is the reason why I added the Trabant example:
> The Trabant was loud, slow, poorly designed, badly built, inhospitable to drive, uncomfortable, confusing and inconvenient. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant)
Java and C++ are both great tools for specific jobs, but from an OOP perspective, they are badly designed. So if you want to discuss OOP as a design choice, it would be unreasonable to discuss it based on those poor implementations. Smalltalk, on the other hand, has its own set of problems, but a poor OOP implementation is not part of it.
Ah, I see what you mean. I do think it's valuable/reasonable to discuss OOP as it is 'in the wild', but I can also see how it's a bit of a dead horse to beat, and discussing what could be
(or didn't become the mainstream) is at least more interesting.
Re:OOP Is Dead, Long Live OOP
by crackerbarrmnd on Thursday October 18, 2018 @05:20PM
(#18252226)
Smalltalk is not an especially impressive language in 2018 and inspection and reflection aren't isolated to OOP today either.
Maybe you should take a look at a real OOP language like Smalltalk before you tell us why OOP is a bad idea. Otherwise, I might tell you why consumers will never adopt cars as I drove a Trabant once.