>>26085
>I wont write a "real program"
just this was enough to submit your concession

>>26079
>Just absolutely braindead.
Just because you're committed to overusing OOP ideas doesn't mean you're right to dismiss the very simple end of things like that.

>>26086
your comment was enough to let us your brain can't generalize from information

The sadder part is that you can't read because I pointed you what to look for

Go in the retard jail with the runtime-onions-faggot, you two look very similar

>>25903
Interfaces are strongly encouraged because they are soft traits
>no data
>no ctors
>allows for multiple inheritance
>only default or static methods with a body in definition

>>26075
>OOP doesn't couple data and logic
>Object-oriented programming (OOP) is a programming paradigm based on objects – software entities that encapsulate data and function(s).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming

>objects ARE subsystems
then what's with all the retarded pizzas that bake themselves examples on here? a subsystem is just a collection of related functionality in whatever way your language allows. most have modules, that's a good subsystem boundary. if your language is shit you can wrap the entire thing into an object, you will get laughed at however

>>26088
>no argument
>ad hominem
lol

I love making people so mad they write typos.

>>26091
> show me how to create a type without a class in a type-based language and an object without classes in prototype OOP
> data A = B | C
> A := (....)
> NoOoOO, you should write a kernel otherwise it doesn't count
you're so dense is not even funny

>>26092
No one is really mad at you on 4chan. You're just a deluded kid

>>26094
No, even you're mad.

>>25950
This is such a good presentation. There's absolutely no intellectual rigor behind any of this OOP garbage. It was all retarded students/interns doing retarded student/intern things completely by themselves. Djikstra was right about everything.

>>26090
>>Object-oriented programming (OOP) is a programming paradigm based on objects – software entities that encapsulate data and function(s).
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming
you skipped the [clarification needed] part

meanwhile,
>In software development, an object is a semantic entity that has state, behavior, and identity.[1][2][3][4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_(computer_science)
data not mentioned

>then what's with all the retarded pizzas that bake themselves examples on here?
might be bad-faith actors, or just midwits
never trust any post that uses non-program entities as example code

>a subsystem is just a collection of related functionality
that's basically what objects are, plus they hold state used between the related functionality while hiding it from unrelated functionality

>>26093
>more meaningless, contextless [A/B/C] babble instead of real code
lol

>>26097
>plus they hold state used between the related functionality
99% of the methods only use a tiny subset of the state and if you actually try to separate everything properly you quickly get to the point where finding actual functionality is difficult.

A simple module system and structs with referentially transparent functions is better almost all the time and typeclasses usually cover the cases where you need more.

Why Functional Programming Is Superior
by Richard Stallman

Friends,

Software should serve the user’s freedom. To have that freedom, you must be able to read, understand, and change the program. Functional programming helps. Object-Oriented programming, as it is commonly taught, hinders.

1. No hidden state
In OOP, an object can change itself internally. Call drone.move() and who knows what 8 fields were mutated, or what other objects were touched. That is not transparent.

In FP, a function takes input and returns output. move(state, cmd) returns a new state. No secrets. You can reason about it. If you can reason about it, you can study it. If you can study it, you are free.

2. Simplicity over bureaucracy
OOP encourages deep inheritance: Vehicle to FlyingVehicle to Drone to QuadDrone. Change the base class and everything breaks. That is coupling, not reuse.

FP encourages small functions composed together. map, filter, fold. Data as plain lists and dicts. In GNU Emacs Lisp we built an entire editor this way. No classes needed. Simple code is code that can be maintained by more than one person.

3. Data should not be imprisoned
OOP says data belongs to the object. That is enclosure. FP says data is data. You can inspect it, save it, transform it with any function. The user, not the class, controls the data.

4. Mathematical clarity
A pure function with the same inputs always gives the same output. That means you can test it, prove things about it, and share it safely. Side effects are explicit, not hidden in a method.

Conclusion
I am not saying never use a struct. I am saying do not wrap everything in classes just because a textbook told you to. Use functions. Compose them. Keep state minimal and visible.

If your goal is code that remains free for the next 20 years, choose the paradigm that is clearest. That is functional programming.

Use GNU. Write free software.

RMS

>>26097
state is data, therefore oop couples data and logic
>a computer program stores data in variables, which represent storage locations in the computer's memory. The contents of these memory locations, at any given point in the program's execution, are called the program's state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(computer_science)#Program_state

>>26101
Yes, but I suck at OOP therefore I don't like it.

>>26102
Everyone sucks at OOP. There are no good OOP codebases and nobody can name one. Not a single one.

>>26096
>. There's absolutely no intellectual rigor behind any of this OOP garbage
Ever heard of object calculus?

>>26101
>state is data
it isn't
also you continue to use wikipedia as a source when it's already been shown it's self-contradictory

>>26103
Skill issue

>>26104
Yes it's a bunch of after the fact nonsense that is highly contested by actual mathematicians.

>>26103
if you're filtered by OOP then all OOP codebases will look bad

>>26108
Name some great OOP codebases then. Finding beautiful C or Haskell codebases is trivial.

>>26099
>99% of the methods only use a tiny subset of the state and if you actually try to separate everything properly you quickly get to the point where finding actual functionality is difficult.
actual skill issue

>>26105
you use your ass as a source, that's worse

Everytime I hear someone hating on OOP, it's always the for the most asinine reasons. Like they hate conformity and dont see it as more of a tool than anything. Faggots.

>>25928
/thread

>>26078
OOP is the preferred way in every business application that is worth a damn. It may seem like "more content and work" but in actuality, you're simply making it easier to build upon and enhance later.

Ive worked in both functional and OOP style, and OOP style is superior.

What people can call out is that jeets with their web development knowledge are running away with DI philosphy, making everything an interface or a service or a service under another service, which makes debugging hell on earth.

But that has nothing to do with OOP and everything to do with web development and jeets.

>>26112
Anytime I hear a proponent of OOP they are always a programming language/math brainlet. Usually using some dynamically typed garbage like Python, JavaScript or Ruby.

>>26115

>>26114

>>26116
> muh business slop
Fuck off jeet.

>>26111
at least my ass isn't self-contradictory

>>26117
Hey, faggot. Even large open source project employs OOP, so it's not just a business decision, you retard.

>>26117
>crying about real use cases
typical nocoder reaction

>>26119
Probably a big reason why basically everything is poorly coded garbage that can be replaced by a jeet/ai. The only application I use that is coded in one of these subhuman languages is Chrome.

>arguments demasked as asspulls
>but muh business
lol

>>25891
FPBP
OOP is only """popular"'' because your favorite retarded tech companies mandate using it to satisfy their autism
Nobody actually gives a FUCK about inheritance and encapsulation
It is known

>>26107
This sentence doesn't mean anything lol. object calculus is just a formal system like lambda calculus
Who are these "real mathematicians" and what they contest? The coherence of an arbitrary formal system?

I love OOP.

>>25886
>why does everyone hate OOP?
It's mostly a combination of older people who were around when OOP was a fad, and are terminally contrarian over it, and younger people who are cargo culting the older people.

Most people who hate OOP have never been involved in a large code base. Once you actually have to deal with a large code base where you can't keep everything in your head at once, OOP (or at least the encapsulation aspect of OOP) becomes basically mandatory.

>>26126
Truth. OOP makes so much sense for professional software.

the project in my post would have been an organizing annoyance if I went with functional old C style programming. >>26125

>>26125
> C tranny loves OOP
Imagine my surprise. Now, go back to wageslaving in game dev and getting laid off for the 4th time in 2 months

>>26128
I did that in my off time. We use C#, js, and sql at my current job. Fag. But yes, I grew up on C/ C++ and still love using it.

I don't get it. Isn't OOP just a way to organize shit?

>>26130
Yes. It's nothing more complicated than that. Just a lot of autists in the programming community hate being conformist, so they fight it just for the sake of it. Much like linux fags who fight macos and windows.

OOP is most popular amongst people who've only used OOP, interestingly enough

>>26130
yes, oop is for making boundaries. using inheritance, coupling data to logic, basically everything else about it is garbage. even languages like java realized this long ago and added features for representing and dealing with data directly without the associated historical brainrot

>>26129
no you didnt.
german 3. already posted.

>>26134
no I didnt what