How Class-based Programming Sucks (2011)

Re:How Class-based Programming Sucks (2011) by rowanseymour on Friday December 13, 2013 @07:13AM (#6900148)

Best (and most humorous) argument against Java's object oriented obession that I've ever read is: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Class-based Programming Sucks (2011) by pjmlp on Friday December 13, 2013 @08:39AM (#6900381)

The funny thing is that many like to bash Java's OO model, and in the process forget that Smalltalk, Eiffel, C# and many others offer a similar model.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Class-based Programming Sucks (2011) by astrobe_ on Friday December 13, 2013 @09:54AM (#6900741)

What's really funny is to claim that the Java/C++ model is similar to the Smalltalk model.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Class-based Programming Sucks (2011) by pjmlp on Friday December 13, 2013 @10:08AM (#6900826)

Kind of, yes.

You can map instance methods to normal methods in Smalltalk. And static methods to class methods in Smalltalk.

Of course, you don't have the dynamism of sending messages, instead of invoking method calls.

However given that Smalltalk is the originator of OO and everything is an object, OO critics would feel in prison most likely. :)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Class-based Programming Sucks (2011) by Alphasite_ on Friday December 13, 2013 @05:15PM (#6903217)

I thought Simula was the originator of OO?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Class-based Programming Sucks (2011) by enobrev on Friday December 13, 2013 @08:54AM (#6900451)

I truly miss Steve Yegge's rants.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Class-based Programming Sucks (2011) by stopthemadness on Saturday December 14, 2013 @12:23PM (#6906265)

It's more that Java is hard because naming things is hard and Java forces developers to name lots of things.

[ Parent | on HN ]