= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MrHen comments on On the Fence? Major in CS - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (57)
Mmm... well, the "fluff" was there for a reason. "Simple" means easy to understand and not particularly complex; "efficient" means the object does one thing and one thing well; "reusable" means the object is not tied down into any particular infrastructure; "work together to accomplish a larger goal" means that an object is designed to work with other objects, not designed to solve a big problem. I suppose I could have expounded on the terms but I didn't figure anyone cared enough.
I'm still not terribly convinced anyone actually cares enough.
The qualifiers -- simple, efficient, reusable -- distinguish good OO code from bad OO code. They have nothing to do with OO in general. Bad programmers will write object oriented code that is complex, inefficient, and non-reusable. Likewise, "working together to accomplish a goal" applies just as much to subroutines in an imperative language or functions in a functional programming language.
Hmm, parent is at -2. I would be curious how anybody could actually believe (and justify) that OOP