@freemo Just woke up; definitely not ready for the classes I have today: OOP just doesn't agree with me

@505e06b2 Not everyone is a fan of OOP. How ya feel about Haskell or C?

@freemo I adore C, dude: it's literally everything I need it to be; portable, low enough abstraction, and with a standard library I can actually remember!

@505e06b2 You arent the only one who feels that way, lots of people love C. Me personally, I like C, it has its place, but I also see where OOP makes sense. The right tool for the job I always say.

@freemo That's what it comes down to in the end, huh? C has its place, but sometimes you just need a quick script, or to express an idea without needing to think how it's all laid out in memory. Anyways, I'm sure I'll appreciate OOP more as I work on more projects with other people

@505e06b2 Yea I think most coders oppose every new paradigm they get introduced to, at least until they love it :)

@freemo yeah, you're probably right, although I've known OOP for a lot longer than I have C... Maybe I just visualise problems like a computer would; where as OOP is for people

@505e06b2 You would know why better than ma. I do know a lot of people who never dig OOP. Maybe you are one of them.

@505e06b2
C will always have its place. Python will give you the tools to change the oil, but C gives you the tools to do a full rebuild.

OOP has had quite the heyday, but people are starting to realize that one can't model the world in *those* simplistic terms. We get closer with each iteration...
@freemo

@tkturney Not sure I entierly agree. Most things we develop from day to day are completely unreasonable to do in C. sure its possible but its a really bad choice for many types of tasks

@505e06b2

@freemo
I totally agree with you. I got my OOP "A-ha" moment while learning Smalltalk. (If you want to force a mental paradigm shift to OOP, I would strongly suggest checking that out everything but the OS primitives are written in Smalltalk. It would probably break your mind to try to write procedural code there.)

I just think that, as we try to model more complex things, the pillars of OOP get kind of wiggly, and we have to jump through more hoops to stay "pure"
@505e06b2

@tkturney One comment. OOP is never about modeling the real world with objects. It is about grouping closely related methods within a self-contained scope. Basically its more about modularity than mirroring real world objects.

@505e06b2

@freemo
Agreed. Convincing upper management of that is the challenge. The struggle is real.
@505e06b2

@tkturney Upper management and even lower management is usually clueless to this sort of stuff.

@505e06b2