you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

OOP is a neat idea, but it doesn't work that well in practice. At least there's a C++ standard now, once upon a time you had to learn a compiler specific implementation.

[–]at_finn 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

OOP is fine and great for many problems. However, with most OOP languages...everything has to be Object Oriented whether it makes sense or not.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

OOP is fine and great for many problems

I can't think of any problems where OOP has more benefit over the complexity it adds, but it's been a couple decades since I touched a compiler.

[–]Vulptex[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Why? Compilers are great. The difficulty of compiled languages is very much exaggerated. In fact I think C is one of the easiest other than how few libraries are written for it. Native compilation, no OOP, raw data management. Not as hard as everyone says it is.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

My love for programming died. Just one of those things. I don't even use a computer unless I have to. It's fantastic.

[–]Vulptex[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Actually Java is the only one I can think of that forces OOP on you. However if OOP is available the so-called "best practices" tell you to use it for everything, and treat that as dogma.

Still, I have yet to see any case where OOP solves problems procedural code couldn't handle just as well.