327
OOP at home: (thelemmy.club)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
89 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 6 months ago (2 children)

@tiramichu
It's this mentality that shows you aren't mediocre. Simplicity requires more skill, not less.
@mesamunefire

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Yup. They made it to the other side of the bell curve meme. Most developers have an OOP phase until they learn that it's utter bullshit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    @jason

    I do like being able to easily bundle properties and functions together. I think objects are useful if kept in their simplest form.

    Though I think some would argue that not using inheritance and interfaces and such precludes it from really counting as OOP

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago*

    I can definitely respect a limited approach. I personally don't find any benefit from it. Anecdotally, I've become much more productive since switching from OOP style C++, to just straight C. I think a lot of that comes from the boilerplate and ceremony required to make it do the thing, but in C, you just do the thing.

    I also think even using objects tends to encourage poorer design choices by thinking in terms of individual items (and their lifetimes) which is enforced by the constructor/destructor model. As opposed to thinking in terms of groups of items which leads to simpler and safer code.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent