when did you realize that this was a massive waste of time, energy and money which held back humanity at the worst possible moment?
when did you realize that this was a massive waste of time, energy and money which held back humanity at the worst possible moment?
About a decade ago
What's the better alternative?
procedural with structs
>structs
You cant replace but extend its usability.
Most of OOPlets just dont know how to use composition, structs or even Enum
Functional programming
C
the moment i tried c++
picrel
>picrel
ah yes, manual memory management is not a waste of time and energy
>What's the better alternative?
I think main problem with OOP is that is very platonic, in the sense that it comes up with beautiful idealistic model. But real world is not beautiful and idealistic. It is dirty, full of exceptions, ugly hacks and workarounds.
That's general modern languages are usually multiparadigmatic, where you can solve the same problem using the OOP way, or functional way, or whatnot.
I think endgame is pragmatism, not paradigm.
For another example, consider political philosophy. No political school of thoughts have ever gained upper hand and managed to wipe out competition once and for all.
All today countries rely on capitalism for wealth generation, but have some social policies for wealth distribution.
Most of them (at least) profess themself democracies, but then also limit their citizens' rights and actual access to power. (At best case for purely practical reasons, like not having to talk with millions of people to actually pass a law.)
Agree with some of this. But the analogy to political philosophy is weak, as one of the major schools of thought is that liberal democracy has emerged as the "final form" of governance through an evolutionary process (Francis Fukuyama - "The End of History?")
>one of the major schools of thought is that liberal democracy has emerged as the "final form" of governance
I would argue that after the rise of China, this idea seem to have one pretty big hole.
The 80/20 rule, 20% of problems don't fit into your nice OOP model, so if you stick to 100% OOP because your language is OOP central, ugly as shit code arises, because you are trying to get that 20% done bending backwards the rest of your design. Also abusing inheritance is avoided nowadays, but back at the 90's and 00's it was used to try to solve anything. My impresion is that OOP was always a blurry concept, See Alan kay's vs others definitions, and after a few years of iterations of telephone game, C++ and Java came to be, and people were trained to think that Java spec was the OOP definition and that OOP solved anything with no explanation of why, because not even the people preaching OOP were exactly sure what OOP exactly was.
the only problem is your interpretation of oop
saying that oop is bad is completely insane. it's like saying that screws and screwdivers are bad and we should just weld everything instead
we should just weld everything.
actually the end goal of technological development is to turn earth into hell and tech oligarchs into gods. bob martin is a christian and it's likely that he created oop to held them back a few years. intentional or not we should all be thankful that it worked. now i've seen that intel released a microcode update that slows AI down by 50%. it seems like there are still good god fearing people working behind the scenes who know whats to come and are trying to keep the demons at bay
>that this was a massive waste of time, energy and money
it is much more efficient than other paradigms considering that the alternatives are worse
like most people:
a few years after having first learned about OOP and thought the exact opposite.
QRD on why OOP is >LE BAD ?
Because it's used a lot, therefore people discover its flaws and don't realize every pardigm has them
I agree on
> There is this quote posted throughout internet:
>"It is better to have 100 functions operate on one data structure than to have 10 functions operate on 10 data structures." This quote is from Alan Perlis' Epigrams on Programming (1982).
I generally agree with the quote
> it's better to have 100 functions operate on one data structure than 10 functions on 10 data structure
and that purposely avoiding side effects as much as we reasonably can lead to a more dependable large project, but saying retarded things like op did just show how incompetent you actually are
Fucked up the copypaste of the quote but you can get what I meant
>it's better to have 100 functions because, ugh, because it just is!!!
It's extremely easy to do badly, and tends to be mindlessly abused for everything even when it's inappropriate or superfluous.
There's also the whole design pattern cargo cult, but this is mostly a Java thing.
When will you realize sitting on LULZ throwing a tantrum about things you got filtered on as an undergrad was a waste of time? All you people do is cry cry and cry. That's how I know you guys are kids that haven't done anything relevant, and currently.
>I'm smarter because I use bloated solutions
You never left the cave; you're just booing at the puppet show.
you do anything that is predetermined by the language you are using, simple as. With Java you go full AbstractFactoryBean with golang you go full separation of data structs and functions, end of story. Being a contrarian with the conventions is like working in a factory interchanging the screws in the boxes that everybody needs to assemble the products.
Jan 18, 2016
?si=cjO7HJGIDKXvHOpn