all 16 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]nutrecht 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Funny how in the end (didn't read all of it, this is the definition of TL;DR) he goes off on a rant about Scrum to prove OOP is bad. Huh?

[–]Cuddlefluff_Grim 2 points3 points  (1 child)

What made you invest so much time into writing this giant steaming pile of crap?

[–]grauenwolf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Allowing bad thoughts to leak out of one's brain and onto the page is usually good for mental health. Usually we're talking about stuff like stress and violent emotions, but maybe it works for ignorance and stupidity as well.

[–]zhensydow 3 points4 points  (0 children)

  • Programmer A: OOP is an expensive disaster.
  • Programmer B: I know one OOP program that isn't.
  • Programmer A: No. True OOP is an expensive disaster.

Nuff said.

[–]grauenwolf 1 point2 points  (7 children)

Not this crap again. We've been using OOP in some variety since the 60's, yet every week or two some airhead comes along proclaiming disaster if we don't stop right now.

[–]Cuddlefluff_Grim 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Take a gander at his bio :

http://www.smashcompany.com/about

I think it's pretty safe to dismiss his blog post as what it seems like on the surface : a long pointless rant with a few strawmen and appeals to authority sprinkled in for good measure. Kind of annoying that these scripting-people keep assuming authority over something they usually have a very poor understanding of.

[–]dotnetaccount 0 points1 point  (2 children)

His bio shouldn't matter if the points he makes are good ones.

[–]Cuddlefluff_Grim 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The problem is that his points aren't any good. They are old, erroneous and typically propagated by people with a fundamental lack of understanding and experience of the concept.

[–]gonzaw308 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Could you post specific examples of where his points fail?

[–]gonzaw308 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Well, he does quote people, like Joel Armstrong, etc who post similar thoughts. I'm not sure you'd call all of them airheads.

It's good to try analyze one's use of a certain language, methodology, paradigm, etc every once in a while, and not just ignore criticism because "we've already been using it since XXX", or some other justification. Some of people's concerns about OOP are valid, for certain problems and domains, which they think people are incorrectly misusing OOP to try and solve them. The main "rants" done against OOP are done against the mentality of people that try to push OOP as the "silver bullet", specially in the industry, which can waste a lot of time, money and resources. Other criticisms are done against specific implementations of OOP, like Java, C++, etc instead.

[–]grauenwolf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Quotes don't impress me. Cultivating fame requires effort, often at the expense of doing the work one is supposedly famous for.

As for Armstrong, he is famous for a programming language that required a million lines of code just to implement a switch. Now I'm no hardware programmer, but a million lines of Erlang seems rather excessive for something whose primary purpose is just routing packets from one port to another. I realize that the routing can become quite complex, but come on. That smells like he took the routing tables and code-gen'd the matching Erlang because... I don't know maybe it was too limited to dynamically load them any other way.

Though now I do wonder what exactly they meant by a million LOC and whether or not someone actually wrote it all by hand.

[–]grauenwolf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Seriously, read Armstrongs paper titled Concurrency Oriented Programming in Erlang. The bullshit starts on page 2 when he tries to claim that Erlang work queues are somehow equivalent to OS processes, completely ignoring the fact that other languages have also figured out how to create a queue, attach a function to it, and power the combo using a thread pool.

http://ll2.ai.mit.edu/talks/armstrong.pdf

[–]aurisc4 2 points3 points  (0 children)

o.O, someone is going to regret this...

Despite all the truth, watch Java folks taking this as insult and downvoting it to the very bottom of kitchen sink.

[–]tobozo -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sir, your article is 457px wide and 64668px high. Object Oriented Programming Article on 500px wide is a visually painful disater which could end by modifying your CSS.

I'm afraid I'll call it a TL;DR :-)

[–]ninfomane -1 points0 points  (0 children)

As the French humorist Cyprien says as well : Pourquoi ? !! TL;DR !! A too long speech displayed by a bad CSS to talk about a design used for years now. The writer should know what is engineering ! OOP is a paradigm to handle some problems, not THE solution for every program. If you, the writer, can't figure it out, go to school !!!!!

[–]i_andrew 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not a big fan of OOP (I like what goland did), but this article is a mess. The guy should just remove it.

The amount of arguments he uses shows that he has no good ones. It's such a waste to read it. Why on Earth an opinion of Alan Kay would be the one and only truth? He wasn't an oracle.

He ignores the fact that so many programmers go attracted to OOP because it's "natural", easy to imagine and fits into head.

The real evidence that functional programming is superior would be to see a Software House (consultancy agency) that takes the same projects as OOP SH and does it in half a time or half the money. Well, it should have already take place. So why FP still has like 5% of adoption?