

What’s Eating OOP: throw out ideological purity, go  multi-paradigm - gtani
http://altdevblogaday.com/2011/08/15/whats-eating-oop/

======
Deestan
It's well and good to tell people to "think!" instead of following dogma, but
what if you are too inexperienced to think clearly about the issue?
Ideological purity makes sense if you face something overwhelmingly complex
and don't really know the best way to handle it. By following a set of strict
rules, you gain an illusion of control that helps you move forward. It is
cargo cult, it is the golden hammer, it is the silver bullet, but it keeps
appearing for a reason.

I think we should recognize ideological purity for what it is: an aid to help
inexperienced programmers keep their sanity.

The big problem is that this purity is too often labelled Best Practices, and
people are given no incentives (or even permission) to break free from it.

------
cageface
It struck me today that C++ templates really provide a kind of static duck
typing. The syntax is hideous but I really like this approach in principle.
It's a bit like Scala's structural types - almost all of the flexibility of
dynamic typing but with the benefits of static typing.

~~~
Deestan
> almost all of the flexibility of dynamic typing but with the benefits of
> static typing.

Just wait until you try Haskell's type inference. :)

------
pavpanchekha
Glad we're seeing so much experimentation with mixing paradigms, then. Scala,
Clojure --- mixing metaphors may turn out to be the winning strategy.

------
galanakis
Deestan, that's an awesome point. I've included it in the article. I've also
made a few other edits based on feedback.

------
dodo53
ha I misread that as GOP (Grand Old Party = US Republicans) :o)

