Programming

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] MyNameIsRichard@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago*

OOP isn't an anti-pattern, but the way it's used in the enterprise Java world definitely is. And it's all based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what an interface is.

parent

[–] Magnum@infosec.pub 3 points 4 months ago (7 children)

Elaborate

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] Tja@programming.dev 2 points 4 months ago

The fedora prevents them from typing fast enough.

parent

[–] amorangi@lemmy.nz 1 point 4 months ago

From my understanding, anti OOP aficionados say too much energy is spent constructing the framework, often unnecessarily, instead of writing the code that needs to be done. I think they have some merit in their argument. It's easy to see both points of view.

parent

[–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 months ago (4 children)

Probably a cat-v reader

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] Magnum@infosec.pub 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)

When was that published?

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

cat-v is a weird corner of the internet, don't try to read it as a contemporary serious opinion piece. See https://harmful.cat-v.org/software/

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] Magnum@infosec.pub 1 point 4 months ago

I was wondering, it reads like old man shakes fist to clouds.

parent

[–] spj@sh.itjust.works 1 point 4 months ago

Harmful: compilers

Better alternative: magnetized needle and a steady hand

parent

[–] spj@sh.itjust.works 1 point 4 months ago

Mutation (or not) is a matter of runtime semantics, not surface semantics. Let the compiler figure it out. (Functional-but-in-place c.f. Koka, Roc, Lean4)

Purity and referential transparency make writing correct, zero-maintenance code easy.

Although you can extract a lot of money from your customers if you deliver inscrutible code that needs a lot of maintenance.