Comments by "Mark Pawelek" (@mark4asp) on "Continuous Delivery"
channel.
-
"Some people claimed that OO has failed. Which, ... is clearly, nonsense."
<- It depends what one means by "failed".
If one means:
- has contributed to mountains of bad, often untestable code, and
- enabled & enshrined many bad programming habits then
Yes. OO has failed. What are the objectives of OO anyhow? Here's one Internet answer to the question of
"what is the purpose of OO":
"The following are the benefit of the OOPs concept: Using the OOPs methodology, one can
- enhance the code reusability and
- save development time.
- Easy message passing establishes communication between classes and objects.
- Using functionalities like data abstraction and hiding,
- OOPs ensure the security of the code."
Eh? Hey: OO-fans: any evidence for any of the above. For example "save development time"? In comparison with what? Also: Who's development time. The time of the "write-once, read never" coder who authored it, or the poor bastards tasked with maintaining it?
The (negative) issue with FP is that it closes down the coder's degrees of freedom. A FP-programmer should exercise discipline to avoid bad techniques and bad code. No such prohibitions inhibit the mind of the typical OO, corporate, coder. To the extent that peer review is absent, they are free to author garbage. So too with the FP-coder, I hear you say. But a coder who chose an FP language ahead of the more, (in demand?) OO language, or even the coder who chose to author with FP-styles within the bounds of an OO-language - must exercise self discipline to narrow their degrees of freedom down. If the main criteria is speed (to production), and project managers, and product owners mainly care about speed - much code will continue to be authored in a "write once, read never" style. How many of the PMs and POs who "manage" product development even know what the difference is between FP and OO styles of programming?
1
-
1
-
1