There are so many definitions of OOP out there, varying between different books, documentation and articles.

What really defines OOP?

  • solrize@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    The Haskell world (which admittedly is its own type of crazy) considers OOP to be a 1990’s thing that was well-intentioned but didn’t work out. The basic characteristics of OOP are subtyping and inheritance (added: plus stateful objects).

    As originally envisioned, objects were supposed to communicate by message passing: i.e. there would be a separate thread of execution for each object, so they could do stuff asynchronously to each other. By that notion, Erlang is the only OOP language that has any traction. Joe Armstrong, inventor of Erlang, famously said:

    I think the lack of reusability comes in object-oriented languages, not functional languages. Because the problem with object-oriented languages is they’ve got all this implicit environment that they carry around with them. You wanted a banana but what you got was a gorilla holding the banana and the entire jungle.

    He could have fooled me. I would have guessed he was talking about npm ;).