←back to thread

Software development topics I've changed my mind on

(chriskiehl.com)
873 points belter | 1 comments | 05 Feb 25 09:50 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
gorjusborg ◴[05 Feb 25 11:49 UTC] No.42947212[source]▶
No, objects aren't generally 'good', unless you think keeping multiple state machines in sync is 'good'.

OO is not evil, but it also shouldn't be your default solution to everything.

Also, who is this person? I immediately distrust someone who calls themselves 'a pretty cool guy'. That's for the rest of us to decide.

replies(4): >>42948148 #>>42948743 #>>42949044 #>>42949626 #
9rx ◴[05 Feb 25 15:16 UTC] No.42949626[source]▶
> OO is not evil, but it also shouldn't be your default solution to everything.

With Smalltalk and Objective-C both being effectively dead at this point, that really only leaves Ruby (and arguably Erlang) as the only languages that are able to express OO. And neither of those languages are terribly popular either. Chances are it won't be your default solution, even if you want it to be.

replies(2): >>42952253 #>>42953983 #
igouy ◴[05 Feb 25 17:45 UTC] No.42952253[source]▶
J ... J ... Java.
replies(1): >>42952374 #
9rx ◴[05 Feb 25 17:52 UTC] No.42952374[source]▶
Patrick Naughton came from the Smalltalk world, so Java is definitely inspired by Smalltalk, but he didn't bring along the oriented bits. Its object model is a lot closer to C++'s. To have objects does not imply orientation.
replies(1): >>42956726 #
igouy ◴[05 Feb 25 23:14 UTC] No.42956726[source]▶
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
replies(1): >>42966557 #
9rx ◴[06 Feb 25 21:13 UTC] No.42966557[source]▶
"I made up the term object-oriented, and I can tell you I did not have C++ in mind.", said Alan Kay.
replies(1): >>42992257 #
1. igouy ◴[09 Feb 25 18:02 UTC] No.42992257[source]▶
That was the easy laughter set-up line. The follow-up seemed to confound the audience.

What was the follow-up?