Code: OOP or POO?

Atwood on Object Oriented Programming. See also: Why Arc Isn’t Especially Object Oriented.

4 thoughts on “Code: OOP or POO?

  1. Ugh. What a couple of annoying posts. đŸ™‚

    Seriously – they remind me of jobs I’ve had working alongside perl programmers. They’d spend their days using a language that only indirectly, haphazardly supports object orientation yet they’d speak at length that OOP is unnecessary. The irony of the rationalization never dawned on them.

    One of the posts, “Why Arc…” is flat out insulting with its theme that the use of OOP correlates inversely with programming ability.

    A second problem that both posts share is the obvious leap to the extreme; inheritance used everywhere, mandates that everything be an object, simply for the sake of it.

    Personally, nearly everything I do is object-oriented. For me, it’s a superior tool to implement good encapsulation and reusable code.

  2. Well, shooting with rockets on moscitos is something between unneccessary and Monty Python… đŸ˜‰ But when the project grows and you have to repeat parts but only the parameters differs then, well, OOP is the best solution for it.

  3. Being the devils advocate here, but if you need to repeat parts with only the parameters are different, then you can simply create another function for it.

    I agere with Jacob Gabrielson, regarding that if you want to program empathetically for other people, then its best to use a class. It gives us data hiding, and its what everyone expects.

    Extreme comments, by definition, are not going to create developer empathy.

    Eric Lippert > Jacob Gabrielson > ….. > Jeff Atwood > Paul Graham