• jason@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Yup. They made it to the other side of the bell curve meme. Most developers have an OOP phase until they learn that it’s utter bullshit.

    • Grendel@tiny.tilde.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      @jason

      I do like being able to easily bundle properties and functions together. I think objects are useful if kept in their simplest form.

      Though I think some would argue that not using inheritance and interfaces and such precludes it from really counting as OOP

      • jason@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        I can definitely respect a limited approach. I personally don’t find any benefit from it. Anecdotally, I’ve become much more productive since switching from OOP style C++, to just straight C. I think a lot of that comes from the boilerplate and ceremony required to make it do the thing, but in C, you just do the thing.

        I also think even using objects tends to encourage poorer design choices by thinking in terms of individual items (and their lifetimes) which is enforced by the constructor/destructor model. As opposed to thinking in terms of groups of items which leads to simpler and safer code.