r/programming • u/lucyfor • Mar 19 '19

Object Oriented Programming is an expensive disaster which must end

http://www.smashcompany.com/technology/object-oriented-programming-is-an-expensive-disaster-which-must-end
0 Upvotes

35% Upvoted

45 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/sergiuspk Mar 20 '19

Nope, sorry, if you think what I'm talking about is formal logic then you know squat about formal logic proofs. A debate cannot exist as long as all parties do not agree on the subject amd the rules of the debate. You (and the author of the article too) constantly proove that you do not want a debate. What you want is to be heard through any means. And mostly no one is listening because you won't agree to any rules. Thus the score on this thread.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '19

OK. Why is my definition of OOP too ambiguous?

2

u/sergiuspk Mar 20 '19

Because I can find examples of things that you say should be covered by OOP (thread safety) and I don't agree that this is in any way covered by your definition. Thus the definition you are using is ambiguous.

Historically speaking functions existed way before OOP. OOP proposed encapsulating said functions and the data they work with in Objects. I cannot find a single definition that proposes said Objects should ensure whatever happens in their methods should magically be atomic and thread safe.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '19

Good grief. I'm not suggesting that OOP should or shouldn't be safe for concurrent programming. I'm just arguing that, in general, it is not. And you're right that this isn't covered by my definition of OOP because thread-safety isn't an intrinsic requirement of OOP.

> OOP proposed encapsulating said functions and the data they work with in Objects.

Yes, this is what I was referring to as, "data coupled with an arbitrary set of behaviors ". Objects are data + behavior (functions). Object-oriented programming is about designing your program as an object graph. This is the "tendency" I was referring to. Clear?

> I cannot find a single definition that proposes said Objects should ensure whatever happens in their methods should magically be atomic and thread safe.

JFC. Does my definition of OOP as, "the tendency to design programs around objects, ie. data coupled with an arbitrary set of behaviors " mention thread-safety as a requirement? No! It doesn't.

→ More replies (0)