rodrigoreis22

well it looks like Netflix should have fired you way sooner, they're getting soft. This is a very entitled blog post and disconnected from reality.

I saw this video and showed them.. lol. I partially agree with the game example shown in the video.. I found the final code quite hard to understand. But I think that's due to my lack of knowledge in all the native stuff Python can do. I like when he says that you don't have to plan too much ahead for the future.. I think this generate phantom requirements that doesn't contribute for the solution. Just change the code when you need it. Wow, this ECA is heaven! :)

I loved this essay Paul Graham wrote: http://paulgraham.com/noop.html

Quoting: "My own feeling is that object-oriented programming is a useful technique in some cases, but it isn't something that has to pervade every program you write. You should be able to define new types, but you shouldn't have to express every program as the definition of new types."

lol.. probably! The very old brainwash people suffer at college and then go out thinking OOP is a silver-bullet that will solve all of your problems :)

It's not currently fat and repetitive.. it has decent layered-organized structure.. My argument is that you can have many of the benefits of OOP in Python just using modules. When you need many instances, each with its own isolated state, or you need inheritance.. then go for classes.

It does work. The argument it's OOP enforces more organized code base.. I don't personally agree. You can have a very clean non-OOP python code and you can also have a very ugly and bad OOP-based code.. it just seems stupid.

Today is easier to get a beautiful template and customize it than building something ugly from scratch.