Why do people hates OOP?

It's a meme. Check harmful.cat-v.org

Attached: 1556215367777.png (2421x2522, 2.93M)

It massively increases the complexity of nearly any program. There are a few exceptions, but they are outliers in software engineering (i.e. video games, which have an abstract creative element), and OOP was needlessly shoehorned into literally everything anyway.

Based

>outliers in software engineering (i.e. video games
they're hardly an outlier or very different from standard application programming

For video games you want DoD over OOP

Read the rest of the sentence, you fucking mong.

i did

stop repeating this stupid meme

1) Nobody knows what OOP really is
2) The one who claim to know what it is will argue with others what it really is
3) In engineering everything should be kept simple and stupid, OOP is the opposite of this because of point 1

OOP makes programming easier for braindead retards, who in turn churn out retarded, braindead programs as a MVP

Because most people here aren't programmers or write small software. For bigger software with yuuge stacks you will want to abstract logic, make use of inheritance, have data encapsulation, and reuse code. OOP isnt for everything but it is for enterprise software/big software

It's not even well defined. It was developed by dumb fucks who didn't really understood procedural programming and functional programming was considered an academic thing at that time.

Attached: 1462639170996.png (570x489, 406K)

I love these kind of retards who think data encapsulation is exclusive to OOP.
>inheritance
useless shit that even shit devs recognize it as such.
>reuse code
practically impossible with OOP since functions are tightly coupled with data.

People whom hate it, just don't understand it.

>People whom hate it, just don't understand it.

Attached: IMG_20190417_030632.jpg (400x400, 16K)

>practically impossible with OOP since functions are tightly coupled with data.

You ever used frameworks?

>inheritance
>useless shit that even shit devs recognize it as such.

You are not a dev.

>shits on OOP
>talks about how he codes using OOP but it’s different and better and OOP is bad cause he thinks his OOP isn’t considered OOP.

Show me the code you’ve written

>I love these kind of retards who think data encapsulation is exclusive to OOP.
It kind of is, because it's a very bad solution to problems that other paradigms are better at solving.

its antinatural

(if you know what is natural in programming)

You only think inheritance is useless because the only things you write are baby scripts that maybe do 20 things tops

Because most people are bad programmers. And what you do if you bad at something? Of course you blame tools. It's just happened that OOP languages ismthe most popular tool.

>Only the last reason has any validity
Incidentally it's also the only reason you didn't pull out of your ass. OOP today is nothing like what it was intended to be. You have people at fucking jewgle writing classes which only has two lines - init and pass. That's how retarded OOP has become

Name a project where we can go learn how oop helps maintain an organized codebase.

>Incidentally it's also the only reason you didn't pull out of your ass
If you know any programmers you've seen plenty of examples of both

I don't know any beginner programmers. I do know some old ones though, and while an unwillingness to change their ways might have been the reason for them not to embrace OOP, it turns out it was the right decision. I wasted so much time learning Java back in college because it was the hot thing as was OOP. Fuck me, i should have just stuck with procedural programming instead. I'm glad more people are waking to up how flawed OOP is

>I don't know any beginner programmers
look in the mirror

>I wasted so much time learning Java back in college because it was the hot thing as was OOP. Fuck me, i should have just stuck with procedural programming instead.
Not really your fault. OOP at its peak was such a virulent meme that a lot of novices were not exposed to anything else.
People keep defending it because they have no perspective of how overly convoluted and ugly it actually is.

Come on you fucking onions merchants

Simple, because it's overrated and arguably overused. Those two things really make people mad (somewhat understandable)

I'd link mine if it wasn't closed source

oop bad
functional good

Because OOP is not implemented properly,
message parsing between objects is crucial, but
almost no language implements it right except Erlang which is more on the functional side.

Mediocre.

This place is the only place pushing Functional the rest of the world is 90% OOP

90% of software is also garbage.

Turns out this place is also filled with 1st year CS dropouts who think they are gonna come up with the next big thing from their moms basement.

what is the good 10% then

Your ego fragility is showing; you Java pajeet.

100 LoC command line utilities written in haskell

Embedded systems, avionics (Boeing bring a notable recent exception, but only recently)

Problem is when oldfags boomers think about OOP they think about JAVA or C++ clusterfuck, when instead "modern" OOP like C# or even fucking Javascript with TypeScript is very easy to write, read and its also very performant.

Attached: aWleYM2R_700w_0.jpg (700x394, 44K)

Minix, some bsd code.

so uncomplicated basic bitch code

Go back

I code in java at work and i feel like OOP is simply an easy way to build large projects, and its easy to find Java devs, hence corporations like it. Things like DI,AOP and lamdas (since Java 8) actually make Java a decent language. I can understand why people think Java is poo because before Java 8 it really was pretty shit. But things like the Apache Foundations give Java a lot of moggening power of other smaller languages.

Even embedded programing is switching to C++ in favor of pure C

Your LARP is showing

>implying

The Linux Kernel is written with no oop you mong. Not defending Linux but fuck, grow some brains.

Even C++ is starting to get it's shit together with C++11, most people bitching about C++ are still living i the days when the absolute clusterfuck that is the STL was introduced

>The Linux Kernel is written with no oop you mong
lol yeah it's not like they basically reimplemented OOP functionality in C or anything

No.

It rots your mind, doesn't solve what it claims to solve, and introduces problems which don't exist in imperative, functional or logical programming

Yes

>OOP required for large projects.
Give me a single reason.
>>For video games you want DoD over OOP
>stop repeating this stupid meme
Entity hierarchies are stupid. What does your OO entity system look like? Or do you make an exception like many other OO programmers and write an ECS(still stupid).
>C massively increase the complexity of nearly any program.
Nope. I would say the opposite.

>Nope. I would say the opposite.
That's because you never tried to decipher large C codebase
It's much easier to understand java code

That's why oop languages became popular in the first place

not him but what part of OOP do you dislike?
most people who hate on OOP usually give examples of insanely convoluted inheritance chains for why it is bad, but in practice i almost never use actual inheritance that isn't just interface implementation, so that seems like a bit of a strawman.
maybe the people who hate on it got burned by being stuck on projects with other programmers who shit the whole thing up with shitty inheritance practices?

>C massively increase the complexity of nearly any program.
>Nope. I would say the opposite.
structs, initializing functions, function pointers, void pointer casting and ass shitload of fucntions with pointer arguments all over the code decrease complexity

Can you give any logical reaons to why OO code is easier to read. Is it perhaps a mystery? Or do you have any clues to why that is?
OO languages tend to have more complex syntax. Often two ways to do the same thing. Like methods vs functions, classes vs structs, inheritance vs omposition and callbacks vs virtual functions. In C there are only functions, structs, composition and callbacks.
I dislike that OO doesn't give me a single benefit.

>I dislike that OO doesn't give me a single benefit.
working with class based data patterns is pretty intuitive and allows for easy compartmentalisation, no?

I find procedural programming intuitive. You think about data structures and algorithms. OOP does not make any code more modular.

because your gay op

90% of "software" developers never used real OOP because 90% of "software" developers are web devs

Because it's peddled as a silver bullet, and lots of programs/universities teach it exclusively, which means their students (ie. my future colleagues) only know how to think about problems from an OO perspective. They also often end up with an emotional investment in it that kills any sort of rational debate about its utility, as demonstrated ITT.

Also the amount of mental effort people spend solving problems that arise BECAUSE OF OO is extremely frustrating. The idea that every function needs to be a method on some object breaks down quickly in practice, and leads to pointless fucking arguments eg. about which class "owns" a method. Life is so much fucking simpler when you don't cram functions and data structures into the same boxes.

It is hard and sometimes redundant. People got used to "dynamic" arbitrary languages that you spend less time coding and triple the time trying to figure out what is wrong.

Because they have internalized OOP as the moment in which programming ceased to be a passion pursued by the academically minded and creative puzzle-solvers and turned into a formalized industry concerned with products and profit more than "neat tech."

So instead of enjoying being paid very good salaries to do a job that you love with the minimal requirement of having to follow vague ideas of an industry-standard best-practice design process, they choose to hate because it's easier to hate and be bitter than to try than do what you love.

What the fuck does OOP have to do with a language being "dynamic" or not?

What are you even on about? Every problem being shoehorned into the OOP mold is part of why commercial software is such a bitch to maintain. The benefits of better-suited abstractions are completely practical in nature. Not everyone who disagrees with the batshit notion of everything being an object is a Haskaller peddling batshit notions of everything being a math equation.

Personally, it's less a hatred of OOP itself and more a hatred of those who use it. Outside of academics, most OOP projects I've seen recently are either over designed or just plain bad and barely functioning.
I'd probably only gravitate towards an OOP design if I was making a game or simulation.

> BASH is harmful
Opinions discarded

>everyone's doing it stupid besides me
>my couple hundred hours of experience with my pet projects have guided me to knowledge that trillions and trillions of dollars worth of sink-or-swim trial

spoiler: companies don't even use anything that you would probably consider OOP anymore. To them, "object oriented" is just code for "best practice" and it's all test-driven, Dependency-Injected services these days.

>OOP
>reusing code

TOP FUCKING KEK!

Beyond based

No it's not.

bloat maker programming is what it really is

don't talk to me or my son ever again

Attached: oop_fags.png (468x300, 17K)

Because oop just puts shit in between the problem and solving it. The way to write good code is to do the simplest possible thing that solves your problem, why would it be any different? OOP is basically never the way to do that, it's boilerplate, it's a dad made up by people and never justified empirically or otherwise. You should think of your data, your data structures, then how to effectively transform that data into what you actually want. Instead you think in terms of code, where you have an object thing that encapsulates a process and it's just a bunch of shit.

Enjoy your Uncle Bob talks and Gang of Four design patterns.

The OOP of C++ is not the OOP of SmallTalk nor the OOP of Simula.

youtube.com/watch?v=QM1iUe6IofM