Yes. There is no empirical evidence OOP is better than functional or procedural

>>53738355
>Is Object-Oriented programming a meme?
Yes. It's gotten to a point where design pattern books have been written for OO languages to emulate common useful functionality from non-OO languages

>>53738421
Example plox?

>>53738421
when I started learning design patterns for java my first thought was these were just absurd workarounds to make up for deficiencies of the language.

>>53738444
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_Patterns#Criticism
I know, wikipedia, but it pretty much summarizes the points you see around the web.

>he says this is probably the most important video about programming youll watch
>video says it is the most important video about programming youll watch
Faggot.

>>53738355
completely retarded

>>53738487
this, senpai

>>53738355
Amen, brother. Code in C.

>>53738355
So, is he right?

>>53739169
Yes, but only because he's repeating everyone else's gripes with OO. It's already pretty solidified that OO code is far too messy and requires far too much aid to get working properly.

>>53738482
So no example and a wiki page referencing the opinion of three guys.
>>53738459
You do realize you can program procedurally in Java? So how are for instance the strategy, action or observer patterns making up for a deficiency you'd otherwise have in another type of language?

You guys need to learn your shit. This isn't rocket science, if you can't comprehend oop then you're fucking retarded.

>>53739169
I think he is probably right. Honestly, I look at some of the examples he gives on how you should code and see a relationship to how I tend to code in it which is a bit reassuring for me.

I look at apps for Android and they have like 100 java files for a fairly simple app and half of them are five lines long whereas I try to keep the number of individual files down.
Perhaps there is a particular reason why in Java/Android you should try and split up your application into smaller parts but it just isn't natural for me and it just seems to make it harder to follow the code.

>>53739253
OO doesn't do anything else to code but force you to name the entities methods belong to. The faggot's making it appear like it's the worst thing ever, while it's only an annoyance in reality. The only problem here is that grouping functions and other data is simply unnecessary, so the big idea of OOP is unnecessary.

>>53739392
His complaint is more about the way people are taught to OOP rather than OOP itself.

Doesnt OO resembles our real work wich is object oriented and thus simplyfing things and making them more intuitive? Im serious,I need explanation if I'm wrong

>>53739801
Arguably that's what OOP "is" right now. The way most people use it.
He does mention that most styles are bandaids for the original model of OOP which never ended up panning out, somewhere around minute 17 or 18 I believe.

>>53739813
*real world

>>53739882
Problem is using inheritance and when you have to change they way you interact with your objects. Doing relations by composition is much superior than inheritance.

When writing classes you should follow a has-a relation instead of is-a which is what's wrong with how they're teaching oop.

I watched this whole video. All he's saying is you shouldn't bother with fine-grained encapsulation because it doesn't yield anything productive in practice. So just don't be ridiculous with your objects.

Unless you have a very general use object, it shouldn't be encapsulated. Good examples are ADTs and libraries. ADTs in Java are immaculate. But it's really no different in any language that has libraries or any code where it makes sense to separate out a bunch of things into a separate file. All of that is encapsulation just on a coarse-grained level.