>OOP is considered by many to be the crown jewel of computer science. The ultimate solution to code organization. The end to all our problems. The only true way to write our programs. Bestowed upon us by the one true God of programming himself…
I've litteraly never met any one praising OOP like this. Even if the intent of this introduction is to overly to make a point, I find it flawed.
> OOP attempts to model everything as a hierarchy of objects
I never heard of anyone trying to use a hierarchy where it wasn't adapted
> The real world has no methods
The real world needs to be modeled into something that can be computed by our human Mathematics. That's the whole point of modeling.
I'm waiting for the 'Functionnal Programming is wrong, let's go back to coding everyting in asm' post in 10 to 20 years
"Those who do not learn history are condemned to repeat it".
I came up writing code in BAL, COBOL, PL/1 and a bunch of other non-OOP languages, and those who think procedural programming is better have probably never done it. The starting point for OOP, at least for me, was the splendid book "Reliable Software through Composite Design" by Glenford Myers, which was the first to study coupling, cohesion and other techniques that lead directly to OOP. This book still maintains a position of honor on my shelf, and I strongly recommend it for anyone doing software development. (You can get a pdf from https://archive.org/details/reliablesoftware00myer or buy your own hard-copy at https://www.amazon.com/Reliable-software-through-composite-d...).
Now, crappy programmers can write crappy code in any language, just as good programmers can write good code in any language -- the prevalance of crappy code speaks more to the numbers of crappy programmers than crappy languages. I would suggest that OOP enables crappy programmers to write code simply because without OOP crappy programmers wouldn't be able to write any code at all.
When functional programming is able to provide performance on a par with non-functional programming, we can talk about it. Until then it is a curiosity, but not ready for prime-time.
To paraphrase Winston Churchill's comments on democracy: "OOP is the worst programming paradigm ever invented -- except for all the other ones".
Yes,I get the criticism against OOP. I kinda don't understand how FP solves the problem of shared mutable state... Or what alternatives there are for myraid design patterns.
I coded in Scala for <1 yr. Loved its syntax and code cleanliness. Not sure if I can do everything OOP does with pure FP, however.
FP helps to avoid the mutable part of “shared mutable state” or at least reduces it to the minimum.
Another pattern is linear or affine type system like in Rust. They helps to avoid the shared part while keeping things mutable with ownership tracking.
I've litteraly never met any one praising OOP like this. Even if the intent of this introduction is to overly to make a point, I find it flawed.
> OOP attempts to model everything as a hierarchy of objects I never heard of anyone trying to use a hierarchy where it wasn't adapted
> The real world has no methods The real world needs to be modeled into something that can be computed by our human Mathematics. That's the whole point of modeling.
I'm waiting for the 'Functionnal Programming is wrong, let's go back to coding everyting in asm' post in 10 to 20 years