Why is OOP considered bad? Why no one on Jow Forums seems to like it?

Side effects, if you have functions that are not functionally pure that for example modifies a global variable, when run in parallel with another process that modifies that same variable that can be really hard to debug.
Also a program written in functional programming can easier be proved to work with math.

Attached: 53028694_340259949929062_9103056971963039744_n.png (540x960, 579K)

/thread

Who is this semen demon?

Some french whore I forgot the name

OO languages map with business processes. They're tools of the merchant people.

>t. just learned about functional programming

"global" variables aren't even a thing outside of some system constants or flags, the last time i've seen one that was mutated actively by a program was when i was in high school and didn't know what classes were. the entire purpose of OOP is encapsulation which makes it so that you literally CAN'T access variables that have higher scope than whatever is attempting the access. the issue with OOP is overengineering, when you have so many nested classes that you start getting 300 character long calls, this happens under other paradigms as well and can be avoided with a little bit of thoughtful design. for example i once saw a 300 line long lambda function which accessed a whole bunch of random shit all over the place, was extremely buggy and completely unreadable, it was then replaced by 10 lines of procedural code. there's no one paradigm that fits every solution, to think otherwise is delusion. learn design, learn architecture, and think for fucks sake

and remember, every functionally pure program is useless because by definition it can't interface with other components

Attached: 1525834108959.png (275x226, 140K)

Found the autist

Jow Forums doesn't hate OOP. When Jow Forums says they hate OOP, they mean they hate how Java does it. I haven't met a single nigger here that wasn't blown away by the Smalltalk way of handling OOP. When you relearn OOP through that, or CLOS, you suddenly appreciate OOP for what it is. You should try it user.

Attached: 1562679666736.jpg (300x300, 22K)

Smalltalk OOP is irrelevant and CLOS isn't OOP

FacadeManagerFactoryFactory

generally, it promises simplicity and clean divisions but seems to lead to verbosity and tangled code in most hands. i'm sure that competent developers coding in an OOP style can produce reasonable codebases but fuck me, the things you see...

A class here or there in a hybrid paradigm language is convenient and usually expressive. Some inheritance can make some APIs ready to use and modify. But when everything is a class you start writing so much useless shit, and are forced to make such pointless design choices.

Attached: 1472743983293.jpg (329x344, 40K)

god i wish i were some unnamed french whore

her eyes weird

Jow Forums is full of people coding in js python and C. None of those languages are suitable for web-scale serverside or enterprise systems, which is where Java excels. Put another way, the average Jow Forumsentoo-man has never worked on anything with more than 10k loc, at least nothing that wasnt a big ball of mud.

OOP is POO in Spanish (Programación Orientada a Objetos)

>names are bad

mutability make programming hard

Because Jow Forums doesn't know enough programming to understand the design patterns.

That's Portugese.

Because most people who have experience with OOP have only seen the way Java and C++ do it, which is admittedly quite shitty.
Look into the CLOS for object orientation done right. You'll find nearly every common criticism of OOP simply doesn't apply in that case.

>"global" variables aren't even a thing outside of some system constants or flags
They are fairly commonplace in real time applications.

Exactly

>Smalltalk OOP is irrelevant
OK

>CLOS isn't OOP
Shit nigga WTF? It's basically OOP taken to its extreme.

>Why is OOP considered bad?
It isn't.
What is considered bad is how some people use it.

pointers and it's highly dependent on libraries

No, it is not.
t. spanish speaking fag

The big knock against it is mostly in high-perf situations, where the dynamic aspects of oop and the memory layouts it encourages will end up slowing down your program via cache misses and vtable chasing.

I think it's great for query-style stuff like C#'s LINQ and other CRUD stuff.

I'm a gamedev, so we typically just put stuff in structs of arrays and follow POD style layouts, just so performance is easier to reason about.

Because it's bad

It's a Platonic essentialism argument

>Why is OOP considered bad?
yegor256.com/2016/08/15/what-is-wrong-object-oriented-programming.html
>Why no one on Jow Forums seems to like it?
It's a running gag.
If you wanna learn more about how to fix OOP's problems, watch this:
youtube.com/watch?v=s-hdZZzMCac

Attached: 1523366112141.jpg (1450x975, 523K)

>and remember, every functionally pure program is useless because by definition it can't interface with other components
i hope this is bait

Jow Forums doesn't really hate OOP, it hates C++ and Java. Unfortunately, those things end up being conflated. Read Object Thinking, OP.

Attached: 41e3C51xqkL._SX408_BO1 204 203 200_.jpg (410x500, 24K)

there's documentation for it from other companies who use it, has lots of modules and libraries so you can get it done quicker. "get it done" being at a job, which I've never had before. Basically been jerking off for the better part of 3 decades with some autistic functional shit lang.

im-an-autistic-fuck.net/Why-Mainstream-Things-Are-Bad-Capital-Words-Im-Smart.obscureHTML

found the pajeet

*cute

OOP is good, but not so good it needs to be used everywhere.

Think of it like this, imagine you have an images folder and you want to sort it.
You choose to use file type, what's on the image and if it's safe for work (don't act like you don't have mountains of porn on your computer, I'm well aware of where we are right now, there's no shame in it, I hold around 1TB for safe keeping). The OOP solution for this would be to have things start with the least complex category (NSFW/SFW) and build out folders from there going down towards most complex as to minimize the total folders you would need to efficiently sort things. The non-OOP method would be to put these identifiers in the name and just check each image manually, now in some cases where even the least complex category has countless different types, this is a suitable option, but in this case it simply isn't. Programming is the greatest example of "use the right tool for the right job".

Attached: 1539149268296.gif (300x168, 262K)

And I oop-

instagram.com/isabelle.rgb/
Had to google search the filename, click on a spanish speaking Jow Forums equivalent result with the same picture and google search the original filename included in that spanish post.

ha, what a dummy

> not posting her sweet, sweet anus

>French
>Full stack dev
In the trash she goes.

cos they don't understand it
just like bill gates/microsoft, never grasped it.
they created the smalltalk = xeroc parc GUI, which it would have been impossible to create, without OO, and stripped the OO out. made an 'impression' of it, in C. why the product (windows, is now such a deteriorated mess), from the start. OO is the only way to do things. people who decry oo are avoiding it, because they find it too "hard". OO is the cellular/heirachical approach to engineering, that is in nature.

OOP is a grab bag of unrelated ideas, nobody can agree what OOP really means. Some parts of it are just garbage (inheritance, subtyping to an extent), some parts are decent (encapsulation) and other parts are fantastic (polymorphism, especially multimethods)

>Why is OOP considered bad?
It's niggerlicious. Only use ANSI C.

found the certified Microsoft technician

Attached: monkas.png (631x624, 106K)

OOP is fine.
The bizarre cult around it is not fine.

this

coz the market value dev time more than code optimisation, wich OOP is good for

Jow Forums NEETs value optimisation and not their times wich is worthless anyway

Most OOP criticism is targeted at *bad* OOP and not the paradigm in general. I have heard some real criticism of the paradigm but I found all of it to be debatable at best.
I'm an FP guy myself.

Because many people's exposure to OOP is through C++ and the meme about how bad it was spread because of it. C++ is not an OOP language. Its C+ OOP templates. If you want to experience real OOP, use C# or Java.

as much as I love C++, this is objective fact

OOP is great for crazy big projects, i personally prefer not to use it but then again like everything it has its advantages and its problems

Back to Uriel school friend

>Abstraction is bad
>uses highly abstracted languages
Why the fuck wouldn't you use OOP
Why is this board obsessed with doing things the hard way.

Abstraction costs hardware, it's the same reason things like uint8_t exist, use what you need and nothing more to do things efficiently and effectively.

A $5 arm chip is more powerful than anything you could get 20 years ago. Let go, white man and enjoy the future.

I'm not saying to not take advantage of newer hardware, I'm just saying that if putting in a bit more effort makes things run faster and lets you do more at once it couldn't hurt to do so and at the end of the day, if not abstracting doesn't cost an exceptional amount of time it really should be the goto course of action.

I don't hate abstraction, I just hate pointless abstraction.

>having a name
>leaving yourself vulnerable to gypsy curses
shiggy diggy

On the other hand, it's also painful to debug extremely recursive code.

As an example, I recently was writing a parser for a large binary file (>1GB) and a my data structures were all filled using sequential stream reads, called in multi-parallel, multi-threaded, recursice looping fashion.

It took me about a week to hunt down all the off by one errors I made on the first pass. It would have taken me less than a day to do the same if I wasn't dealing with recursion spaghetti.

>she

Because scope is an abstraction for you, the programmer. A computer is a stateful machine. All functional programming is ran as stateful, procedural microcode.

>Why is OOP considered bad?
It's not
>Why no one on Jow Forums seems to like it?
Jow Forums is mostly filled with stupid CS students who have no idea what they are talking about.

that guy is fat so I’m going to ignore what he says

>Abstraction costs hardware
High-level abstraction doesn't cost shit most of the time.
Only low-level abstraction is costly but it's a necessary evil.

Excessive abstraction is bad not because of its cost but because it makes the code harder to read thus defeating the main objective of OOP.

kys

based stroke poster

>herp derp OOP is more natural because IRL there object hurr durr
Yeah I see a whole bunch of AbstractStrategyFactoryFactories IRL

global varialbes: otherwise known as config files.

config files are global variables. you see them plenty.

It isn't it's just 90% of software Jow Forums writes doesn't require the mess of abstractions and boilerplate that is required by most OOP langs.

OOP is female.

Attached: ha_2010-11-02-01-33-32.jpg (745x452, 263K)

>Why is OOP considered bad? Why no one on Jow Forums seems to like it?
Because he is always a faggot. You included.