On 10/04/2018 11:40 PM, rikki cattermole wrote:
On 05/10/2018 8:23 AM, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
I was in college during the height of the Java craze, so my
instructors highly recommended the deep nesting approach. This was
because return statements are control-flow, and control-flow isn't
very object-orientedy, and is old-fasioned and in the same category as
the dreaded goto and was therefore bad. So I switched to the
nesting-instead-of-returning style because it was "The Right Way".
"Terminology invoking "objects" and "oriented" in the modern sense of
object-oriented programming made its first appearance at MIT in the late
1950s and early 1960s."[0].
And this is why you have to be very careful with any sort of trend in
programming. Because it was already done before you were born (assuming
you began learning after 1990) ;)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming#History
It's not *my* statement about newer/older. If you recall the programming
atmosphere around 2000, OO was widely being touted as a newer thing,
superior to "old-fashioned" imperative, even though there's a million
things about that whole assessment that are false (not the least of
which being the at-the-time popular notion that Java-style OO somehow
wasn't still imperative, or, as you pointed out, that OO was a new
invention).
There's one minor aspect of it that was true though: Widespread
popularity of OO was certainly a new thing, even if OO itself wasn't.
