undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjasode9y ago0 comments

>, and you see Traditional OOP as Good OOP.

No, my comments don't agree with that.

In fact, I tried to point out that his "traditional OOP" examples are incorrect OOP and therefore, a straw man to be arguing against.

0 comments

abiox9y ago

the swell thing about "OOP" is how ill-defined and vague the notion can be. just like "correct OOP" and "incorrect OOP".

as a consequence, discussions can go back and forth, frequently resulting in little but gymnastic displays of equivocation and red-herrings. when the dust settles, surprisingly little communication has occurred.

mpweiher9y ago

"OOP to me means only messaging, local retention and protection and

hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things. It

can be done in Smalltalk and in LISP. There are possibly other

systems in which this is possible, but I'm not aware of them."

http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~ram/pub/pub_jf47ht81Ht/doc_kay...

kazagistar9y ago

That is not the definition of OOP the author is using. He made it clear what he meant by OOP; a paradigm seen often in production systems. Productive discussions start by accepting given definitions and arguing against the resulting points, not by arguing that the definitions are wrong because they don't match the exact form defined by someone somewhere.

1 more reply

_pmf_9y ago

> In fact, I tried to point out that his "traditional OOP" examples are incorrect OOP and therefore, a straw man to be arguing against.

You successfully replaced his straw man by your true Scotsman.

jasodeOP9y ago

>your true Scotsman.

I don't think "OOP" is an unreachable shared understanding such as the "No True Scotsman" applied to debated concepts like "communism".

Despite the different vocabulary and emphasis of Alan Kay (Smalltalk) and Joe Armstrong (Erlang) about OOP, there is still a commonality of understanding there. The OOP concepts expressed in Objective-C, Borland Delphi, and other GUI toolkits share that understanding of encapsulated state with message passing (methods) via a coherent "public interface".

The author was not arguing against that "shared understanding" of correct OOP. Instead, he highlighted bad coding practices (albeit very common ones), then labeled it as "traditional OOP".

Yes, there is a ton of misunderstood and misapplied programming practices that others label as "OOP". That's the fault of the people doing the mislabeling and not the fault of OOP.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse