/λ/ - programming

OOP is not necessarily a bitch, but some people take it too far,
forcing their problems into to be object oriented solution.

>>1035
this. Any design pattern, applied badly, is bad. OOP is one of the most heavily-pushed patterns, so bad examples of it are more commonplace

not necessarily. as long as it feels "natural" oop is fine. for instance you might have a custom string class with built-in encryption, it might hold the strings in memory in an encrypted state, and only decrypts them whenever necessary and so on. in this case oop might be useful, you could use operator overloading and it would feel as if it was never there. but i see stupid soykaf where people go ahead and create a stupid class with ordinary unrelated methods that could also have been created within a namespace. this and similar soykaf is why most people gets triggered by oop.

>>995

OOP's purpose is the abstraction of data points in order to solve a problem.

In some cases this is ideal.

In other cases, it abstracts the details that matter, and we end up with outcomes we don't actually want.

Where OOP fails is when the designer of the system fails to solve the real problem. If the designer fails to realize the end solution, they fail to create objects that properly represent the data points.

This is the root of all OOP complaints.

Smalltalk is OOP done right.

>>1189
What makes it different from other OOP languages?

Java was a mistake.

>>1180
In most cases it comes down to “the real OOP hasn’t been tried yet”. Even Alan Kay, the guy who coined the term “Object-Oriented”, later said that he didn’t have C++ in mind. And I’m pretty sure you’ve seen these videos, too:
https://youtu.be/QM1iUe6IofM
https://youtu.be/IRTfhkiAqPw
https://youtu.be/V6VP-2aIcSc

>>1202
These videos are useless even if you ignore the unwarranted self-importance syndrome of the author. Object-oriented programming is about dynamic dispatch, not "segregating state". He's fighting a straw man.