I was also disappointed by the atricle's end: Pretty much only the Dijksta quote was worth reading. The title promised to backup the claim with a real-world experience of OOP, but alas, it did not deliver such.
OOP is better where you code more readably(in comparison with procedural) and where it makes you enjoy coding more. The conditions for when it does that differ from persons to person and from project to project.
I personally like OOP because it helps me focus on different abstraction levels at the same time, and it helps me stay in the flow.
I don't think procedural programming itself makes code unreadable. For example, take a look at the redis source code. It's clean and approachable.
I do not find procedural code unreadable, nor is that what I meant to say. Rather the contrary: I said that OOP is only better if the same problem solved in OOP is more readable, which holds only true for a subset of problems.
Regarding the redis source code: Beautiful, truly. I wish more code was that clearly and extensively documented.
Re:Anthropomorphism Gone Wrong: OOP
by theonekeith on Saturday January 03, 2015 @12:18PM
(#8831269)
+1
In the end I'm left with the same conclusion. Given that there is no obvious performance gain from a procedural approach, I would opt for a design pattern that is friendlier to the programmer (the human being). It's helpful to model things this way as an organizing approach. And there are obvious benefits to maintaining state within their respective concerns.
It isn't to say OOP is the only and best answer. It very much depends on the program, but I was hoping for a more obvious win on the procedural side here.