What's with all the OOP hate recently?

youtu.be/u8B3j8rqYMw

Attached: mike_action man_acton.jpg (200x200, 7K)

every program in a non-oop language tries to implement its own shitty version of oop

Attached: 2-November-2017_Did-You-Know-1200x1200-INFOGRAPHIC-600x600.jpg (600x600, 36K)

this
its a pain in the ass to use inheritance on Lua because it always generates closured superclass so its literally useless

>lisp
>fp
lol

every program in an oop language tries to implement its own shitty versions of non-oop features through "design patterns"

> lisp
> non fp
lol

Lisp is not a FP language. It's the purest example of a multiparadigm language that exists.

All the OOP hate comes from NEETs.

>Inheritance chains are hell to manage.
This desu. Inheritance sounds nice on paper, but sucks balls in practice. People do really retarded shit with it.

Explain further.

Attached: 1566712045778.png (466x486, 81K)

The visitor design pattern is just a hack to get around not having multimethods.
Dependency injection is just partial application turned ugly and clumsy.
Adapter interfaces? Who needs those when you just have type classes you can implement post hoc?
The strategy pattern is literally just functions as arguments. Decorators are function composition.
All of this shit is just overcomplicated compensation for an inadequate set of primitives.

CLOS. You silly, little summer-child

Use composition over inheritance and you're good

OOP backwards is POO

HOLY FUCK

youtube.com/watch?v=bwQl73KgS1g

OOP doesn't fucking exist. Every OOP "guru" seems to have his own definition of it. Even Alan fucking Kay doesn't know what he meant by OOP. Either this, or he unironically meant Smalltalk, which is even sadder.

NOOOOO MR BABU SIR GET DOWN!

Funny how it's always the "BUY MY BOOK" crowd shilling for OOP, while people who actually write code(Carmack, Linus) are vehemently against it.

Linus isn't against OOP. The linux kernel has some parts that are object oriented.

>Functional
This meme again. You people are like religioncucks who see every religion for what it is(bullshit), but fail to see the same in their own religion.

rxjava

Name a compiled language that doesn't besides c. Hell name an interpeted language that doesnt

Using objects where it makes sense != OOP. The problem with OOP is that it tries to fit everything into objects at any cost.

>religious
You are so fresh with those analogies tranny.

C++ is the only good OO

Neither Go not Rust support OOP

Inheritance
>reuse code
Polymorphism
>use code as necessary
Encapsulation
>prevents problems
And it makes everything more organized in general. At least in theory everything will be more parsimonious.

Obviously you haven't written any projects with an FP lang.

Since when "trying to fit everything into objects" is the definition of OOP?

>flexible
>Functional

how is something that outputs the same value as the input flexible?

top-tier bait

Alan Kay's life work was stolen from a better researcher at the same lab.

Polymorphism and abstraction aren't unique to OOP, and inheritance is harmful.

Design Patterns are nothing but cludges and work-arounds to get out of the confines of inheritance based OO. Get rid of OO and you stop wasting your time concocting convoluted Design Patterns to get stuff done.

> inheritance is harmful

Only to neet autists who fap to code purity instead of producing actual working software products.

Give me five (5) examples of inheritance being useful, and not harmful, to a production code base.

functional programming is the only answer

all other heretics will be burned at the stake in front of our church of alonzo

>can't help but seethe about god in totally unrelated threads
I will never understand fedoralords.

Attached: fedora2.png (1186x1186, 249K)

Alan Kay laid out clearly what it meant. Smalltalk and Lisp are the only language where it's possible.

>Smalltalk and Lisp are the only language where it's possible.
Alan never said that. OO in smalltalk means that objects are just collections of methods that hold no data/state, both Go and Rust move away from defining data/state to hold methods, its rather methods and collections of methods that polymorphically handle data

>strategy pattern
this shit right here
>hur dur just make a class implementing an interface to provide a function
nigga just use a fucking function pointer or something

Class based OOP like Java is extremely inflexible and leads to pointless shit like dependency injection and factory patterns. Patterns in java are made to get around the limitations imposed by strict class based OOP.

The idea of objects isn't bad. It's how they're implemented. I prefer prototype-based objects. I also like the actor model for concurrency which would be far easier to implement with prototypes.

At the end of the day it's all just fat pointers and other magic in the background though.

>OOP in spanish is Programación Orientada a Objetos (POO).

"OOP to me means only messaging, local retention and protection and hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things. It can be done in Smalltalk and in LISP. There are possibly other systems in which this is possible, but I’m not aware of them." - Alan Kay.

Holy shit, how will they ever recover?