Object Oriented Programming is an expensive disaster which must endwritten by lawrence krubner, however indented passages are often quotes. You can contact lawrence at lawrencekrubner. The No True Scotsman fallacy leads to arguments like this Person A No Scotsman ever steals. Person B I know of a Scotsman who stole. Person A No True Scotsman would ever steal. Person A is thus protected from the harmful effects of new information. New information is dangerous, as it might cause someone to change their mind. New information can be rendered safe simply by declaring it to be invalid. Person A believes all Scotsman are brave and honorable, and you can not convince them otherwise, for any counter example you bring up is of some degraded Untrue Scotsman, which has no bearing on whatever they think of True Scotsman. And this is my experience whenever I argue against Object Oriented Programming OOP no matter what evidence I bring up for consideration, it is dismissed as irrelevant. If I complain that Java is verbose, Im told that True OOP Programmers let the IDE take care of some of the boilerplate, or perhaps I am told that Scala is better. If I complain that Scala involves too much ceremony, Im told that Ruby lacks ceremony. Calendar Download Hebrew'>Calendar Download Hebrew. The Symbol Swearing trope as used in popular culture. Over time, people have come up with various handy ways to insert swearing, or at least the recognition. If I complain about the dangers of monkey patching in Ruby, Im told that True OOP Programmers know how to use the meta programming to their advantage, and if I cant do it then I am simply incompetent. I should use a language that is more pure, or a language that is more practical, I should use a language that has compile time static data type checking, or I should use a language that gives me the freedom of dynamic typing. If I complain about bugginess, Im told that those specific bugs have been fixed in the new version, why havent I upgraded, or Im told there is a common workaround, and Im an idiot if I didnt know about it. If I complain that the most popular framework is bloated, Im told that no one uses that framework any more. No True OOP Programmer ever does whatever it is that Im complaining about. There are many beautiful ideas that people associate with OOP. I am going to show 2 things 1. Elevator Autocad Detail'>Elevator Autocad Detail. OOP languages have no unique strengths 2. OOP languages inflict a heavy burden of unneeded complexity. Python Monkey Patch Static Method' title='Python Monkey Patch Static Method' />The US State Departments office in South Korea has not immediately returned Gizmodos request for comment. We will update this post when they do. Those features which are potentially good data hiding, contract enforcement, polymorphism are not unique to OOP and, in fact, stronger versions of these things are available in non OOP languages. Those features that are unique to OOP dependency injection, instantiation are awful and exist only because OOP is awful. I am taking an ecumenical, universalist approach to OOP. Download the free trial version below to get started. Doubleclick the downloaded file to install the software. The GameBreaking Bug trope as used in popular culture. The dark side of Good Bad Bugs though not necessarily mutually exclusive and a Griefers favorite. InformationWeek. com News, analysis and research for business technology professionals, plus peertopeer knowledge sharing. Engage with our community. Python Monkey Patch Static Method' title='Python Monkey Patch Static Method' />Below I will refer to all of these languages as OOP C, Java, Scala, PHP, Ruby, and Javascript. Is that fair I know, from personal experience, some proponents of Java will complain that Ruby and PHP lack compile time data type checking and therefore should not be considered OOP. And I know, from personal experience, some proponents of Ruby will argue that in Ruby everything is an object, whereas Java still has non object primitives such as integers, and therefore Ruby is more of an OOP language than Java. I know that some critics of PHP will argue that OOP features were bolted on to PHP and it should not be taken seriously as an OOP language. I know some people will point out that Scala is multi paradigm and it is as easy to work in the functional paradigm with Scala as it is easy to work with the object oriented paradigm. Given the diversity of the languages, and the lack of a standard definition, is it meaningful to talk about OOP at all I would say yes. The need is urgent. OOP may be a poorly defined, amorphous concept, but it absolutely dominates the tech industry. Many software developers, and many companies, feel that OOP is the only reasonable way to develop software today. Any one who argues against OOP is immediately made conscious of the fact that they are arguing against the conventional wisdom of the industry. I run into this when I go to a job interview. It does not matter if I interview for a Ruby job, or a Java job, or a PHP job, the job interviewers ask me if I know what OOP is. They ask me to define encapsulation and polymorphic dispatch. These are standard questions, to which I am expected to give the standard answers. And when they ask me What are the benefits of OOP I find myself wanting to give an awkwardly long answer, which consists These are the 1. OOP, but really OOP has no unique strengths. And so I am writing this essay, and in the future, when Im asked questions like this at a job interview, Ill simply directly people to what I have written here. Does any of this really matter You could argue that Im wasting my time, that I am writing a very long essay that merely engages in a bunch of semantic hair splitting that benefits no one. But I would suggest that muddled definitions lead to muddled thinking, in the manner that Orwell described A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. On that basis, I would like to think that I do some good, to the extent that Im able to take on the broad range of ideas associated with OOP. Fashion Magazine 45 Torrent. This essay is long, and it would be even longer if I carefully qualified every sentence about OOP. Please note that, below, when I refer to a multi paradigm language, such as Scala, as an OOP language, I am specifically referring to the OOP qualities in that language. And I would like you to ask yourself, if you use a multi paradigm language to write in the functional paradigm, are you actually gaining anything from the OOP qualities of that languageCould you perhaps achieve the same thing, more easily, using a language that is fundamentally functional, rather than object oriented On tech blogs and forums, there are a great many people who defend OOP, and who feel certain that they know what they are defending, despite the lack of any standard definition. Consider this remark by millstone on Hacker News This article, like many that cheer functional programming, falls into a certain cognitive bias, that prevents it from seeing what OO is good at. What is OO good at Apparently millstone thinks that OO is good at being dynamic. Haskel has static type checking, ignoring the fact that Java, C, C and many other OO languages all have static type checking Alan Kay wrote The key in making great and growable systems is much more to design how its modules communicate rather than what their internal properties and behaviors should be. To start to see what this means, consider the annoying String Data. Text split in Haskell. String is very much in the leave data alone mindset, baring its guts as a Char. Now youre stuck you cant change its representation, you cant easily introduce Unicode, etc.