OOPs! Aphorisms!
OO isn’t really a design consideration, it’s a metaphor. — Reginald Braithwaite
Skepticism sets in…
OOP describes the real-world in the same way that the metaphor “Raganwald is a diamond in the rough” describes your ability to act as a piece of jewelry. — Fogus
Also…
Functional Programming puts all the symbols and problem-space in your head at one time — you become the linker. — Daniel Markham
But…
Functional thinking is less about functions than data. — Fogus
No no…
if you’re writing FP in a legacy environment with lots of nasty complex data structures you have a big headache. This would not be true in the same data environment with a well-constructed OO tier. — Daniel Markham
Wait…
With fp languages the tendency is to think in data and abstract via functions. — Fogus
Meanwhile…
I don’t know that OO’s main goal is to be readable, but rather to manage complexity. — ahlatimer
But what if…
Complexity comes in many flavors. One of those flavors is mutable state. — Devin
Finis
Postscript…
OO is not dead, but pieces of it are definitely gangrenous. — Fogus
So instead…
:f
One Comment, Comment or Ping
Julian Morrison
OOP has had two good ideas (composition and interfaces) and one horribly bad one (inheritance). Alas, everyone picked up and ran with the bad one.
Mar 19th, 2011
Reply to “OOPs! Aphorisms!”