Objects are fine.
OOP sucks.
This has bell curve meme vibes. I’m just not sure what the middle guy would be saying.
He died of XML factory injection pattern exposure.
If only he had a briefcase of XSLTs to make sure the XML was safe first.
It would say PrototypeFilterStubFacadeBridgeDecoratorTaskRequestMapEventExporterInfoModelRequestIterator
I’m just not sure what the middle guy would be saying
“I hate inheritance! I hate inheritance! I hate inheritance! I hate inheritance!”
But well, inheritance goes brrrrrr.
deleted by creator
Why Isn’t Functional Programming the Norm? – Richard Feldman
- objects and methods are just structs and procedures
- encapsulation is just modular programming
Anyone who praises FP is either a student, works primarily in academia, or otherwise never had to look at a deep stack trace in their life.
Every time a production system spits out a backtrace that’s just 15 event loop calls into a random callback, I lose 6 months life expectancy. Then I go look at the source, and the “go to definition” of my LSP never works because WHY WOULD IT, IT’S ALL FUNCTIONAL
hapi.registerCALLSI hate it I hate it I hate it I hate it. I support UBI because the people pushing functional programming in real production systems should be reassigned to gardening duties.
I’m not advocating one way or the other, but I would gladly take on the gardening duties :D
Interfaces are great.
Inheritance is often a sign that the previous developer didn’t understand interfaces.
Broad generic claims like that tell me more
Yep. I’m old, cranky, and prone to broad statements to get reactions.
That said, for any of you all that love inheritance, I’m judging you so hard. So hard. Very judged. I probably hate your code, and your friends’ code, and your last teacher’s code. Especially your last teacher’s code.
Prefer composition over inheritance. Though that doesn’t mean inheritance has no place in programming.
you can write oop without inhetitance
There’s the camp of those who say that inheritance is synonymous with OOP. I’m not in that camp, but I’d like to see you duke it out with them.
That’s just structs and unions right?
You will still have private/public sections, interfaces (unless you class them as inheritance), classes and instances, the SOLID principles, composition over inheritance. OOP is a lot more than just large family trees of inheritance, a way of thinking that’s been moved away from for a long time.
I haven’t used TypeScript in a classically OOP way and it never felt like I was being urged to do so either.
I’ve worked on projects with 10 000+ lines or typescript and maybe 3 classes total
But you have used objects I think.
Of course, but OOP is typically about putting methods on classes, inheritance of behaviour etc.
JS Objects aren’t typically used that way, they tend to be used as pure data containers. At least, that’s how we mostly use them.
Occasionally, we’ll use objects to simplify passing multiple arguments including arrow functions, but I’d say that doesn’t really count unless the arrow function mutates the object it’s a part of.
And maybe you have some functions that interact with them but don’t keep them super public so they’re only used by specific modules/store/redux thingy?
Of course, but OOP is typically about putting methods on classes, inheritance of behaviour etc.
You’re referring to one subtype of OOP. That may be what most people mean when they say OOP, but that doesn’t make it correct. Object-oriented programming is programming with objects, which does not require inheritance or classes.
With such a broad definition you could call even Haskell an oop language
So you’re arguing that “Object oriented” shouldn’t apply to languages that are oriented around objects?
It becomes quite OOP if you use it with React
Huh? I’ve worked with TypeScript + React for the last 5yrs and the only time I see OOP is when someone’s done something wrong.
Maybe you’re thinking of old react with class based components?
Proving that adding the
classkeyword to the ECMAScript spec was a mistake that leads folks down a path they should not travel 🙃I completely agree. I taught JS/TS for 5yrs and I always emphasised that the ‘class’ keyword was just syntactic sugar for what was already available in prototype inheritance of JS.
The venerable master Qc Na was walking with his student, Anton. Hoping to prompt the master into a discussion, Anton said “Master, I have heard that objects are a very good thing - is this true?” Qc Na looked pityingly at his student and replied, “Foolish pupil - objects are merely a poor man’s closures.”
Chastised, Anton took his leave from his master and returned to his cell, intent on studying closures. He carefully read the entire “Lambda: The Ultimate…” series of papers and its cousins, and implemented a small Scheme interpreter with a closure-based object system. He learned much, and looked forward to informing his master of his progress.
On his next walk with Qc Na, Anton attempted to impress his master by saying “Master, I have diligently studied the matter, and now understand that objects are truly a poor man’s closures.” Qc Na responded by hitting Anton with his stick, saying “When will you learn? Closures are a poor man’s object.” At that moment, Anton became enlightened.
Can someone please enlighten me on what makes inheritance, polymorphism, an operator overloading so bad? I use the all regularly, and have yet to experience the foot cannons I have heard so much about.
If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
That’s the only thing I can think to answer your question. There are some problems that are best solved with other tools, like text parsing for example you might want to call out to some code written in a functional language.
Oh, thanks then! I’ve heard people shred on OOP regularly, saying that it’s full of foot-canons, and while I’ve never understood where they’re coming from, I definitely agree that there are tasks that are best solved with a functional approach.
Nothing, just use a good tool for the job, whatever that job requires.
I don’t think that the anti-oop collective is attacking polymorphism or overloading - both are important in functional programming. And let’s add encapsulation and implementation hiding to this list.
The argument is that OOP makes the wrong abstractions. Inheritance (as OOP models it) is quite rare on business entities. The other major example cited is that an algorithm written in the OOP style ends up distributing its code across the different classes, and therefore
- It is difficult to understand: the developer has to open two, three or more different classes to view the whole algorithm
- It is inefficient: because the algorithm is distributed over many classes and instances, as the algorithm runs, there are a lot of unnecessary calls (eg one method on one instance has to iterate over many instances of its children, and each child has to iterate over its children) and data has to pass through these function calls.
Instead of this, the functional programmer says, you should write the algorithm as a function (or several functions) in one place, so it’s the function that walks the object structure. The navigation is done using tools like
applyormaprather than a loop in a method on the parent instance.A key insight in this approach is that the way an algorithm walks the data structure is the responsibility of the algorithm rather than a responsibility that is shared across many classes and subclasses.
In general, I think this is a valid point - when you are writing algorithms over the whole dataset. OOP does have some counterpoints encapsulating behaviour on just that object for example validating the object’s private members, or data processing for that object and its immediate children or peers.
Because an object is good at representing a noun, not a verb, and when expressing logical flows and concepts, despite what Java will tell you, not everything is in fact, a noun.
I.e. in OOP languages that do not support functional programming as first class (like Java), you end up with a ton of overhead and unnecessary complications and objects named like
generatorFactoryServiceCreatorFactorybecause the language forces you to creat a noun (object) to take an action rather than just create a verb (function) and pass that around.This makes sense to me, thanks! I primarily use Python, C++ and some Fortran, so my typical programs / libraries aren’t really “pure” OOP in that sense.
What I write is mostly various mathematical models, so as a rule of thumb, I’ll write a class to represent some model, which holds the model parameters and methods to operate on them. If I write generic functions (root solver, integration algorithm, etc.) those won’t be classes, because why would they be?
It sounds to me like the issue here arises more from an “everything is a nail” type of problem than anything else.
deleted by creator
Using classes is nice tbh. Using inheritance usually isn’t. Inheriting from inherited class should be forbidden.
Uh… from Caml? Because OCaml’s object support is the least surprising part of the language.
modules >>> classes, anyway.
Is OCaml going mainstream, hm
OOP is nice. Why do people hate it?
Because of inheritance.
I think the main problem is that people try to shoehorn OOP mechanics into everything, leading to code that is hard to understand. Not to mention that this is basically encouraged by companies as well, to look “futuristic”. A great example of this approach going horribly wrong is FizzBuzz Enterprise Edition.
OOP can be great to abstract complex concepts into a more human readable format, especially when it comes to states. But overall it should be used rarely, as it creates a giant code overhead, and only as far as actually needed.
Oh no, the FizzBuzz EE has evolved since I’ve last viewed it! 😱 Is it bad if it actually reminds me of my current work project’s backend (that I haven’t written) a bit?
I learnt Caml in the 90s at university, I was completely lost, in Prolog too.
OOP was a mistake!
Polymorphism just goes over my head.
It’s not that hard however I think it’s absolutely useless and doesn’t add any value to the code.
I like polymorphism. Having to have a hundred differently named functions or structs or something that do the same thing but slightly differently in Rust is annoying as hell. Especially with all the underscores you have to type… If Rust were more functional though it’d make that problem go away pretty quickly.
I used to think I was just a fanboy. But as time went on and I gained more and more experiences, I’ve only become all the more sure that ANSI C is the only language I ever want to write anything in.
I was the same, but I recently gave zig a try, it’s lovely to write.
Managed to segfault the compiler though, so maybe not quite ready yet.
C++ classes are fairly optional but if you’re already using cpp then it likely wasn’t your choice and neither will the choice of OOP.
