
Being poor at modeling is essential to OOP (comment on LtU) - blasdel
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/3265#comment-48063
======
curtis
The thing about OOP is that you need your objects to belong to your solution
domain, not your problem domain. If you get this backwards, you will likely be
unhappy.

~~~
arakyd
The thing about OOP is that it is described as way to make programming easier
because objects are so "intuitive," and the examples for this are all toy
simulations with naive object "models." What the post describes, and what
everyone who actually does a significant amount of OOP programming eventually
figures out, is that the only things OOP makes intuitive are stupid
approaches. It's possible to program well in OOP languages, but there's
nothing intuitive about doing anything non-trivial well, in any language.

I blame Alan Kay for inventing a new paradigm and then not explaining how it
was supposed to be used (it's like Lisp meets biology!), thus allowing it to
be taken over by others who filled the vacuum with a multitude of their own
(usually half-baked) ideas bastardized implementations, and "software
architect" positions.

~~~
curtis
I think you're right that there's a serious problem with how OOP is described.
Why that's so is a full topic in and of itself.

In the case of Alan Kay, I can't help but feel like he was trying to create
one thing but actually created another.

~~~
jamesbritt
"Smalltalk is object-oriented, but it should have been message oriented." --
Alan Kay

[http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story...](http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Creative_Think.txt)

------
DanielStraight
One word: Awesome.

More words: This sums up so much wisdom on how to do (or not do) OO. The whole
thread is great, but that comment is definitely a highlight.

------
wwalker3
Lambda the Ultimate discussing object-oriented programming is like backwoods
Christians discussing Hinduism. "What do them folks need all them gods for
anyways? An' that one Krishna, why's he look like a blue baby? Ah guess some
folks'll believe anything!"

It just seems pointless to constantly profess such dismay and amazement at how
clueless other peoples' programming paradigms are. Is there anyone who
_really_ doesn't believe there's more than one self-consistent, sensible way
to write code?

~~~
anamax
> Is there anyone who really doesn't believe there's more than one self-
> consistent, sensible way to write code?

The existence of multiple ways to write sensible code does not imply that
every way to write code is sensible.

BTW - Do you have any significant experience with "backwoods Christians" or
are you just winging it from your ignorance? (I've run into several who taught
themselves Greek so they could read ancient religious texts.)

~~~
wwalker3
I apologize for any offense. I don't mean to imply that all "backwoods
Christians" are really baffled by Hinduism -- I also know some of the type you
mention, the serious students who learn ancient Greek.

I was using the "backwoods Christian" stereotype to make a point in a
(hopefully) humorous way, that people who are totally wrapped up in their own
worldview often completely fail to understand the point of other worldviews,
and don't even realize they're missing the point.

For what it's worth, I was raised in the back woods, and grew up around the
kind of people I caricatured (who were thankfully always a minority). But
since intent is hard to convey on the Internet, it would have been wiser for
me to use talking animals like Aesop, or something else less likely to offend.

------
jrockway
Wow, looks like Programming Reddit found LtU. Sad.

~~~
ulvund
464 times

<http://www.reddit.com/domain/lambda-the-ultimate.org/top/>

