R.I.P sweet prince

OOP isn't perfect, it can be abused, but it works pretty well most of the time.

There are two kinds of programming paradigms: the ones everyone is bitching about, and the ones no one uses.

Under the metal, classes are basically treated as super-functions, that you your code calls to do some utility. When you "return monkey.banana" you're calling on the monkey class to return the banana value. That was what Armstrong is implying with his quote.

yeah but look at the quote, I could literally say the same thing about C and everyone would nod their heads.

except im using a struct and not a class, i think that makes a difference (no inheritance or polymorphism)

True. My problem with the paradigm is the restrictions. They work if you want to not care for safety checks in your programming, but it is not my style. I can see why people like it though. I use a lot of object-like structures, but the paradigm itself is not to my liking.

>am i missing something ?
Yes

wow absolutely btfo
how will he ever recover ?

What good is a banana by itself though

Dunning-Kruger the thread

This is a snare I see a lot of new programmers fall into. Each language and style is good at some things and sucks at others. You should view them all as tools in your toolbelt. There is no "best language". OOP may be overkill in this situation, but when you actually need the whole jungle its really gonna suck trying to build the whole goddamn thing yourself.

>too stupid to decouple objects
>it's a language fault REEEE

people who name drop "dunning kruger"
are the epitome of dunning kruger

The hate oop gets is because it's so annoying and companies force you to use it

that's only true if you use a shitton of frameworks without knowing what you're doing.
Just make the software using the pure language and you're good to go.

You have to be massively retarded to write OO that way.

please don't tell me you would use an interface instead.

Interfaces and composition, yes. 95% of my software is written functionality, with OO as the overarching organization strategy. That means lots of immutable pure data objects that use a mix of interfacing and inheritance to keep things DRY when appropriate, and functionality driven computation unless a procedural methodology is superior, which occasionally is the case. I will very rarely use interfaces or inheritance around methods. Sometimes it makes sense, but it's usually way more trouble than it's worth. Inheritance in general is dangerous in inexperienced hands. Experienced ones will use it sparingly.

>Pajeets, trannies and SJW on suicide watch.
S

make a gorilla banana example

Using life as an analog for a software design is retarded. Life is designed iteratively and uses emergent, evolved functionality. It only fits into codable boxes at the highest level. I guess I'd start with asking "what do I actually need to model, what does this simulated ape and banana need to do? What is the design scope, will I need more apes? More fruits?". If it's just the ape and the banana and the ape needs to eat the banana then I'd make an ape class that takes type banana and consumes it in a method. Fucking KISS.

I mean, it's obvious, what's the point?

ITT: people thinking that using classes = oop

There’s nothing wrong with objects themeelves, it’s the “oriented” that’s the issue. Objects are useful, but don’t try to fit everything into objects just for the sake of being an object.

I wish

so that includes you as well :^)

no
(^: