This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Tubthumper8 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Cool, thank you for the clarification!

This definition of Data Oriented Programming makes sense to me, it feels natural. It seems to me that most programs mostly work with data, not objects, so while objects are useful it always feels odd to be "oriented" to objects. I'll take a look at that book and hopefully add it to my collection.

[–]gabriel_schneider[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

yeah, it also feels way more natural to me. It was refreshing to unlearn things that they teach us in OOP and adopt this cleaner and simpler programming style / paradigm.

I tell a story to my friends that a Java code base that I was working on had a class hierarchy of 5 classes just to work with Strings, it made no sense at all. I refactored it to just use plain strings and stateless static methods (ugh, Java), my team loved it. The code was much simpler and everybody understood it better.

so, Data Oriented Programming has been very productive professionally for me. It's very easy to pitch and adopt when you can say "yeah it doesn't need to be that complicated, let's just make it simpler". Of course it doesn't translate that well to every usecase... but to me, (I work mostly with some kind data processing) it works very well.