OOP

OOD is godlike, OOP has its places but is overused

OOP is a great solution for some problems.
Enforced OOP into everything, like Java does, is the real pain the ass.

Imagine being Iori and never being able to have anything but anal sex? Every single time you went to bed with some stud they'd instantly pounce on your little anus licking and prodding it before lubing up and jamming it into your starfish. You'd constantly try to egg them into giving your snatch a try to no avail; every man's heard of your legendary butthole and wants a piece of it, for all they care you might as well have a fat cock resting under it and it wouldn't amount to a hill of beans to these anal-obsessed wierdos. Eventually your ass would begin to loosen from being rammed so hard so many times by thick cocks that you'd barely even have to push to release stool, and one day you realize to your horror that you've pinched a loaf right in public without even realizing it. You'd have to resort to wearing a buttplug everywhere you went just to keep errant turds from flying out your loose sphincter. People would start to notice how you walk funny, and seem to prefer one leg. Rumours start to spread about how your ass has been so worn out your whole rectum has prolapsed and droops down to your knees and you need an attendant to shove it all back in again before a performance. People say that you needed to be admitted to the hospital once after your rectal entrails can out in the middle of the night and almost strangled you in your sleep. People are beginning to interpret all the lyrics of your songs as metaphors for your anus-related grievances. People are counting down the days until you come of age and drop out of the idol scene to become a JAV star that specializes in rosebud scenes where horny fans of yours line up to take a nice whiff of precious Iori's inside-out baked Alaska.

Imagine being Iori.

Attached: file.png (594x1539, 601K)

>>>/to/r/

simbly ebix

based analposter

truly based

Don't say such lewd things about my wife

It's not, but it gets a bad reputation from the more popular languages having a shit implementation of it and then forcing you to use it for everything.

B-But that's not how anal sex works you goober. Or shitting for that matter. If you are pushing it out you are already doing something wrong.

The oriented part.

>P rofessional
>O bject
>O riented
>P rogramming

Great question user.

Based

It's not, brainlets just complain about things they don't understand

It's not. It's just only applicable to a subset of problems, but some people apply it to all of them.

Its not. Most people are just bad it at. It requires carefully thinking through definitions are hierarchies, similar to Aristotle's categories.

It also requires planning, which companies and programmers hate to do.

OOP can be a powerful paradigm when used correctly.

It really isn't, unless you shoehorn it into cases where you need to model things that are not objects. Every paradigm has its place.

The main downside I can think of is that it is a somewhat arbitrary way to handle inheritance, encapsulation, and polymorphism, and that you can provide those features in a more orthogonal way. In particular, encapsulation at the module level and polymorphism with either traits/typeclasses or multimethods is generally more powerful, and wouldn't really be harder to teach.

Also, don't let anyone tell you that OOP and FP are opposites. They are two orthogonal concepts, and you can combine them just fine in the same language.

Sure, if your compiler is shit.

I believe OOP gets a bad name because it conflates two separate ideas:
1) the encapsulation of data structures
2) the encapsulation of state

The first is quite obvious, OOP enables nice, easy to write data structures. Composability (member variables that are themselves objects) allows nice clean designs of data structures and sub-data structures. Things like inheritance allow data structures to share sub-data structure implementations, which is also convenient.

Independently, this first idea is quite nice, and typically what OOP-lovers tout.

The second idea is effectively a recipe for disaster. Methods allow the mutation of data structures without those data structures being passed in to the method as an argument -- which means you have to keep a mental model of all the state that is potentially mutated in any method. The issues with this mental model are compounded by things like inheritance, which make it very easy to increase the state encapsulated by a single object. This usually leads to designs that are quite hard to understand without a lot of time spent in the codebase (which ultimately makes some peoples jobs very secure).

Anti-OOP folks usually attack this second idea.

Do or anybody else have a link to the arguments of the opposite perspective, i.e. from an OOP supporter? I would love to hear their arguments as well, but couldn't find them.

You can get a job with it, which is obviously a downside for Jow Forums

What the fuck even is OOP? I don't think anyone can give a good answer.

Generic functions exist and most "OOP" programmer don't even know what that is. OOP didn't invent private fields. Inheritance is hot shit.

Because too often people make things into objects that dont need to be objects. It can more easily lead to gobbedly gook code with poor performance and terrible memory overhead in the hands of your average programmer.

>What the fuck even is OOP?
polymorphic inheritance and encapsulation basically

They're businessmen at heart (or so they think), OOP talk to them much more than other programming paradigm. Also, they dream of being the next Bill Gates, so they're obsessed with gooeys and Microsoft technologies.

You missed the joke

No, I didn't, I saw But I wanted to give a more serious opinion about Pajeets in programming. Is that forbidden now?

OOP is based with multiple dispatch. Otherwise, it's just POO. CLOS or bust.

Good designed OOP is high tier.
Indian OOP is spaghetti code and shit.

Its a good paradigm for low level, anything high level should be done in FP when possible.

I started learning to code recently so im not an expert but i know for a fact that entire banking systems (backend) are built in java using OOP principles, so it cant be all that bad? I think OP statement is wrong. OOP is not bad, like someone else in this thread said its just not good for everything.

It was invented specifically for GUI and it's not even very good at that.

some people here are confusing OOP with Java
just because you hate java doesn't make OOP bad

Did you watch the video? Pretty sure he addressed that point. The main part of his argument is that OOP in practice often does not make things clearer, and that for the most part operations are simpler procedurally.

>appeal to authority and/or agrumentum ad populum
Cease.

>Imagine being Iori.
unironically commit suicide

Attached: me_068.jpg (720x408, 177K)

Attached: 1545954324416.jpg (2000x1409, 551K)

This is my fetish

Attached: 1467498035124.jpg (600x827, 119K)