OOP is bad

>OOP is bad
then wtf am I supposed to use nigger?

Attached: 9cfd1b2838c51c4827de7a9409009b1d.png (420x420, 335K)

Other urls found in this thread:

wiki.c2.com/?ClosuresAndObjectsAreEquivalent
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Why not Go?

Attached: golang.sh_-490x490.jpg (200x200, 19K)

There's nothing wrong with OOP if you don't shoehorn it when it's not needed. Use the right tool for the job.

this, every design pattern has its uses, pros and cons

a language which doesn't give a shit about what paradigm you use. functional and OOP is niggerlicious. a mix of them is godly.

Read PAIP by Norvig.
Try CLOS, common lisp OOP
Or Erlang/Elixir, it's the only "true" OOP as in what Alan Kay originally thought such a system should be, which means message passing to 'objects' that do not share state unlike C++/Java trash that does.

+1

This. Many languages higher level than C++ support the functional paradigm to a certain extent (JVM languages, .NET languages, Ruby, etc.).

OOP is good though if used properly. Much of Jow Forums is just unemployed and likes to bitch about overuse of design patterns like factories and whatnot, but it's only because they don't understand why they can be useful. That's literally the only reason.

You don't even need to use any design patterns to make use of the most important features of OOP (encapsulation and polymorphism), though. The ability to define flexible interfaces is incredibly useful, which is not immediately apparent until you work on complex applications for a while (most of Jow Forums is still learning to do fizzbuzz in C).

This. Functional code is easy to follow; oop is handy.

Concatenative programming.