[bobnewsParticipant]

In the late 1980’s Oops meant you made a mistake.

The idea of using a OOP language was that if individuals followed the features of the language you would have organized and consolidated code that would make the code more easy to understand and flexible for changes.

Instead of code that is understandable and flexible we now have code that is even more difficult to understand and more difficult to change. You can not make individuals create understandable and flexible to change code by simply using the features of a OOP language.

The reality is that with OOP most individual will simply create spaghetti code. The code will work but the code will be so unnecessarily complex that it will be difficult to understand and difficult to change. The computer system will become a legacy system the day after all of those that wrote the code are gone.

The truth in software development is that an individual that is logical and organized will create code that is easy to understand and easy to change even if the code is written without using a OOP language.

Reality is that using a OOP language will not increase the probability that the code is understandable or easy to change.

[dtaillardParticipant]

No programming paradigm will magically prevent spaghetti code or increase the probability of the software being implemented properly, OOP included. It is up to the programmer to implement the program properly. A programming paradigm simply provides a specific structure to a programming language that the programmer can take advantage of.

Do you agree that this could apply to any programming paradigm? For example, I could argue that a procedural programming language does not increase the chances of producing readable, maintainable code. If not, can you provide a specific example of how OOP makes it more difficult for the programmer to implement a program properly?

• This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by  dtaillard.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by  dtaillard.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by  dtaillard.

[bobnewsParticipant]

I stated that “Reality is that using a OOP language will not increase the probability that the code is understandable or easy to change.”

If “No programming paradigm will magically prevent spaghetti code or increase the probability of the software being implemented properly, OOP included.” then I guess OOP’s is a failure. The hype of OOP was that the code would be easier to understand, and easier to change.

Program languages can be created without features that make it likely that there will not be spaghetti code. This was not the case with OOP.

“Can you provide a specific example of how OOP makes it more difficult for the programmer to implement a program properly?”

Sometimes it is better to organize code by type or group instead of object. If you ignore this and organize everything by objects you wind up with a large number of objects that make it more difficult to understand than if you are organizing code by type or group. In software development you need to be flexible in the coding and this is not the case with OOP.

If you want to organize code without objects you can simply use naming conventions. It really is not difficult to use naming conventions for all of the programs and variables of a base station. You do not need an object to be organized.

In software development I want a programming language with core features and without unnecessary constraints. I do not want a OOP language that has a number of constraints regarding objects. An object is a constraint and not core or needed. I can group together all of the related programs or variables of unit of program without an object.

OOP’s is a failed idea. If this was not the case there would not be so many programs that are poorly designed and difficult to change.

You will have more programs that are easier to design and to change when you have better programing languages that do not use the ideas and features of OOP.

[Author]

Posts