On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 10:01:34 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
On 2013-11-14 10:37, Don wrote:
I just can't escape the feeling that class-based runtime
polyphorphism
is almost never an ideal solution, and that most of the
benefits and
success of OOP languages comes from things other than OOP
itself. And I
think it's because OOP is philosophically nonsense -- in the
real world,
similarities between things are everywhere, but almost none of
them are
is-A relationships.
I think the most useful parts of OOP is encapsulation and have
the data and methods in the same place.
Actually no different than using ADT (Abstract Data Types)
popularized by modular languages like Modula-2, with the added
benefit of type extension and polymorphism.
Just because OOP has objects in the name, it doesn't need to be
real objects, but concepts actually.
The main problem was that OOP productivity was oversold hype, in
the same vein as web 2.0, cloud computing, agile and whatever
might come next. People need to sell books and certifications.
And that the early OO design approaches focused too much in
implementation inheritance instead of interfaces and delegation.
--
Paulo
