Re:The use of `class` for things that should be simple free ...
by TheOtherHobbes on Thursday May 28, 2020 @04:35PM
(#23342211)
There's nothing you can do in Python that you can't also do in assembler. It just takes a bit longer to code, but runs a lot faster.
But no one is going to write a big industrial project in assembler today, because it's the wrong abstraction for the job.
Likewise with objects. They make it easy to switch conceptual levels in a domain in a way that projects don't. They take a bit longer to code, but with careful coding you can reuse them ad lib.
The OP is making the point that OOP is the wrong abstraction if there's no reuse. And that's perfectly true.
But there are situations where you want to say "Make a thousand of these items which respond dynamically and somewhat independently to their environment but which still support some kind of top-down management..."[1]
You're going to have a bad time trying to do that with exclusively with closures. Of course you can probably make it work - but that doesn't mean you should.
[1] E.g. particle and/or crowd simulation in games/CGI.
But no one is going to write a big industrial project in assembler today, because it's the wrong abstraction for the job.
Likewise with objects. They make it easy to switch conceptual levels in a domain in a way that projects don't. They take a bit longer to code, but with careful coding you can reuse them ad lib.
The OP is making the point that OOP is the wrong abstraction if there's no reuse. And that's perfectly true.
But there are situations where you want to say "Make a thousand of these items which respond dynamically and somewhat independently to their environment but which still support some kind of top-down management..."[1]
You're going to have a bad time trying to do that with exclusively with closures. Of course you can probably make it work - but that doesn't mean you should.
[1] E.g. particle and/or crowd simulation in games/CGI.