Bye bye, OOP!

Bye bye, OOP!

Attached: l.jpg (680x795, 85K)

Other urls found in this thread:

medium.com/@cscalfani/goodbye-object-oriented-programming-a59cda4c0e53
blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2014/11/24/FPvsOO.html
youtube.com/watch?v=o9pEzgHorH0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>I am too stupid to write reusable code.

>impact font in 2018
>starting an 'article' with an image macro
ww3 when?

In exhibit A we see a jew who has never written a line of code in his life pretend to be a beacon of light and knowledge on Jewdium.

Attached: s1.jpg (1416x9064, 1.3M)

Attached: s2.jpg (1411x7699, 1.08M)

Attached: s3.jpg (1422x9249, 1.4M)

atm I'm trying to get a bit into programming and I'm outright stumped by 1) how many times I've encountered this discussion and 2) how like 80% of relevant software is OO for the past decades and 3) how there are always people claiming they've written in OO style (sometimes multiple languages) for 20+ years and then just basically flatout say it's deeply flawed...

I don't feel like reading all this guy's shit. Can someone tell me all the reasons why I should hate him and his article so I can be mad too?

Because he's a stupid liberal complaining about logic

WOW I AM ENRAGED FUCK THAT GUY

These "I ditched X, heres a monologue justifying it" posts are as tired and boring as ever. Who is this article for?

Attached: thatface.png (800x300, 25K)

>using is-a paradigm vs has-a paradigm with C++

>class diagram
>it's another C++fag-ignores-composition-over-inheritance-and-then-complains-about-his-OO-code-sucking episode

why switch langugages? simply write everything in one file in these oop projects and boom your set

Ah, fucking brainlets taking over the internet.

Smalltalk OOP is fine. Erlang "OOP" is finer, because the messaging is async. The problem is with mainstream languages like C++, Java, C#, and JavaScript. Read Alan "I made up the term 'object-oriented', and I can tell you I didn't have C++ in mind" Kay.

why dont you just give us a link to the article? Is it against the board rules? are you boycotting media?

medium.com/@cscalfani/goodbye-object-oriented-programming-a59cda4c0e53

Every cry of "OOP is broken" say the same things and the problem is that they beleive or perhaps were promised that the core features of OOP (vs procedural/imperative prog) should be used ALL THE TIME and ARE ALWAYS GREAT but the reality is that they should be used with care and in the right places. Just like with design patterns, they have trade offs and use cases and for the use cases they are very good.

So in the end, OOP is great. You should learn it. While you're learning it, constantly question what you're learning and imagine situations where you wouldn't want to use it.

(of course, if you're at the very basics and still learning an array from a list and how to write fizz buzz and reverse a string or find the most common letter in a string, you don't need to be thinking about OOP at that stage. Just learn the syntax and solve the problem)

Given that his article reads like the prologue of baby's first C# book, I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that he has no idea what he's talking about.

>why wount you give add rev to my friend goy?!
Ffs. cant you give archive link?

> what if libruls are the real racists

wrong tred sry

You can tell he doesn't have an idea because at the end he goes
>Hello Functional Programming

They're orthogonal paradigms.
blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2014/11/24/FPvsOO.html

Stopped reading at banana-monkey-jungle. He's just a brainlet.
This. And inheritance isn't about reusing code in other projects, it's about not repeating yourself.

thanks, sounds reasonable

>inheritance,Encapsulation and polymorphism == OOP

Yes, nobody know OOP.

>.net
>language
Into the trash it goes

Rust's implementation of OOP is the most based choice among all old and new languages

Back to your cuckshed at /plg/

I am not a programmer, but I thought that the point of Object Programming was to have usefull bit's outside of the main code and just call it in where you want it. So why the hierarchy?

OOP makes things much easier when you have API documentation

Brainlet clearly doesn't know about interfaces or abstract classes, which solve the diamond problem nicely

Go be autistic somewhere else, unemployed subhuman.

>inheritance isn't about reusing code in other projects, it's about not repeating yourself
How are they not the same? I mean, the only case when they would be different is when you're reusing code written by somebody else. Are you saying that inheritance is about reusing only code that you've written yourself? What's the point of this restriction?

You mean traits? Aren't these just limited type classes?

For example you need to make HTTP request in your C++ code.
You should find library and just #include it, create an object and call the function. literally 5 lines of code.
How is OOP not useful?

Ugh.

>Who is this article for?
As with most media nowadays, for the narcissism.

>software engineer
>architect
>teacher
>writer
>filmmaker
>photographer
>artists
Back in my time those people were called jacks of all trades and laughed at. Now they write dumb articles with fancy words for internet fame

Sorry, but after reading the article the conclusion I see from this guy is that functional programming is the solution for everything. Yeah, like those haskell scripts that can take months to execute, or functional language stacks that can get an overhead of 100-300% for standard procedures. I don't buy it at all

>create an object simply to call a method when you could call a function without creating an object
>adding extra steps to simple actions for no reason

Jesus christ, user

lolhaha everyone laugh at this pathetic and outdated monoskilled inlander you dont know anything about the new post 2000 world old person

These kind of article always felt really lazy and low effort, on top of being very click baitty.

Attached: shark_face.jpg (640x640, 52K)

>liberal arts fag tries to code, the article
probably one of the worst things I've even read, not even a rudimentary grasp of OOP, and then just shits out textbook examples
people like this are why people like me will always have jobs

There are at plenty of good reasons to create an object when making an HTTP request faggot. You'll also want an object in return.

Rust isn't OOP, but the features it has are. OOP should get the credit for every feature in Rust.

youtube.com/watch?v=o9pEzgHorH0

>I don't know how to use OO language features therefore OO is dead!!11
What a goddamn moron. Why do people write articles about things they have no understanding of?

Holy shit a tripfag isn't spouting bullshit for once, color me exceptionally surprised.
This is the ticket: Don't buy paradigm dogma. Different problems require different tools to solve efficiently.

>reuse code
>copying class hierarchies from one project to another
Jesus fuck, good thing this was near the beginning so I didn't waste more time on it before confirming the author is retarded.

He's commenting things programmers have known for a while now. OOP is a false god. There are a few very good use cases for it, but please stop outside of that.

says the dumbfuck whining about an article that was posted in its entirety

Can someone elaborate on this? Not memeing but I find myself wishing I could just call a function and get a variable back all the time when using C++ libraries. To be fair, I'm no C++ dev. Why would I always want to declare an object to run someone's function and why would I want it to always return an object even if I just need something basic back from it?

If you literally just want to feed bytes to a socket, then sure, call your method.

But when you want to support socks proxies, want control over TLS protocols, want a custom truststore, want custom auth headers on all your requests etc, then the HttpClientFactory everyone loves to meme about starts to seem a bit less silly.

I didn't say always. It could go either way. for example:

typedef struct {
char *name;
char *value;
} header;

typedef struct {
header *headers;
char *host;
char *path;
char *body;
} request;

typedef struct {
int status;
header *headers;
char *body;
} response;


/* Now which is easier to read to you? */

response* http_do_request(request *req);

/* OR */

bool http_do_request(char *host, char *path, header *reqheaders, char *reqbody, int *resstatus, header *resheaders, char *resbody);


There's no right answer. Some like the flexibility of the latter and others like the organization of the former.