>Born of simulation, now used for everything, even when inappropriate
>Encouraged by Java/C# in all situations, due to their lack of (idiomatic) support for anything else
>Mutable stateful objects are the new spaghetti code
>>Hard to understand, test, reason about
>>Concurrency disaster
>Inheritance is not the only way to do polymorphism
>"It is better to have 100 functions operate on one data structure than to have 10 functions operate on 10 data structures." - Alan J. Perlis
>Many functions defined on few primary data structures (e.g. seq, map, vector, set) is superior
>>54868292
>object orientation
>she did a landscape selfie
she's already better than 95% of the population
>see tons of "oop sucks" threads
>never see any "functional programming sucks" threads
Conclusion I'm coming to is that functional turds are vocal and unemployed and have a lot of time on their hands
>>54868779
>I found OOP hard and am happy that I now understand it, others must also find it difficult to grasp
I sure hope you're as good with the toilet as you are OOP
>>54868292
>"It is better to have 100 functions operate on one data structure than to have 10 functions operate on 10 data structures." - Alan J. Perlis
If your OO design is good, you wont have multiple data structures. I fail to see your point.
>>54868817
are you seriously implying that OOP has less job opportunities?
>>54868292
>It is better to have 100 functions operate on one data structure than to have 10 functions operate on 10 data structures
whoever said this has no clue what oop is about. you can do either of these things in any language.
OO good:
defining scope of methods and data
enforce pre and post conditions
OO meh:
you usually want composition, but there are also cases where inheritance is the obvious answer.
OO sucks:
people can program OO interfaces extremely poorly in a way that isn't immediately obvious
>>54869495
What's that white stuff flying around?
>>54869636
cocaine
>>54869636
Delicious tears
>>54869636
Probably a panadol they put there for effect.
