Re:Case against OOP is understated, not overstated (2020)
by rbanffy on Friday February 11, 2022 @07:01AM
(#30300384)
> OOP as frequently implemented
This is the real issue with OOP. Abusing a type system, using inheritance when composition or interfaces would be more appropriate, etc.
I've seen pretty much every programming silver bullet implemented in the most horrifying ways by people who didn't understand the reasoning behind each approach.
You can write great FORTH and terrible LISP. You can write readable FORTRAN or APL (I'm stretching it a bit here) and elegant 6502 assembly. You can even write resilient and reusable JavaScript and PHP if you have the discipline to do it.
> If you're writing a service doing requests, you want as minimal state as possible.
The service can have a lot of state. What you really don't want is your client trying to keep track of it. When tempted to do so, you need to change the service.
This is the real issue with OOP. Abusing a type system, using inheritance when composition or interfaces would be more appropriate, etc.
I've seen pretty much every programming silver bullet implemented in the most horrifying ways by people who didn't understand the reasoning behind each approach.
You can write great FORTH and terrible LISP. You can write readable FORTRAN or APL (I'm stretching it a bit here) and elegant 6502 assembly. You can even write resilient and reusable JavaScript and PHP if you have the discipline to do it.
> If you're writing a service doing requests, you want as minimal state as possible.
The service can have a lot of state. What you really don't want is your client trying to keep track of it. When tempted to do so, you need to change the service.