Good oop is hard to implenent and keep track off in my experience.

I have seen projects so hard which have such large hierarchies and reused components that even the most minimal change breaks an entire change. Dependency injection is a pretty cool tool to use, but I have seen more people fuck it up and make something that supposedly removes tightly coupled components be the extreme opposite.

Remember your basics people. Fuck

Ok everything is good now. Happy thoughts...nuthing but happy thoughts

  • 3
    Inheritance is the biggest problem with OOP, I think. It's very difficult to do well.

    Encapsulation is fine, but you can do that in many ways.
  • 2
    If OOP were really so natural as OOP proponents claim, it wouldn't be hard to implement.

    And in fact, encapsulation in OOP is usually an illusion anyway.
  • 1
    @andros705 eeeexactly. That is completely fine and perfect and I am more than familiar with the way that works(even experienced in it)

    Sadly the people that worked on these systems were not............;__;
  • 3
    @andros705 Composition over inheritance FTW
  • 4
    Functional oop > literally anything else
  • 1
    @andros705 wait, but why strategy? Isnt strategy supposed to replace logic by context?
  • 1
    *Does dependency injection without interfaces*

  • 1
    @sharktits your face > literally anything else
  • 2

    The point of OOP is that it can be anything you want. You want it to be a confusing mess that is a nightmare to maintain.. it can be that.. or it can evolve into near perfect system.. With near English code.... with functionality that causes you to have an orgasm bc it is so sexy how nothing breaks when you add to it...

    Or you know.. Maybe stop working and go get laid.

    Fuck I need some time off.

    Anyway.. Up to you.
  • 1
    @rant1ng loo I am pretty sure that was not the point of oop from the beginning but I like yo examples
  • 2
    OOP is fantastic when implemented right (just like anything in IT). If you want to see what a great architecture looks like in OOP take a look at this: https://tv.ssw.com/7472/...

    That's how i structure my code, So swapping and changing stuff is done with min amount of side effects
  • 0
    @AleCx04 yeah.. I'm....kinda drunk right now.

    I see, he was complaining about shit oop that he had to fix... K.

    Anyway why am I still on devrant. It's party time. See y'all in the morning.
  • 1
    @MrCSharp appreciate the link bud thank you. I do know what good architectural patterns do look like tho, I am merely remarking upon the structure that people before me at my current workplace did before my time here.
  • 1
    @AleCx04 mate, i completely understand you. I am currently maintaining 2 big ecommerce systems that are the true definition of spaghetti code...
  • 1
    Reminds me of this old quote:

    "The object-oriented version of spaghetti code is, of course, 'lasagna code'. Too many layers." - Roberto Waltman

    Layers can definitely be good, though, if done well (I love a good lasagna). I think the problem is more that it's just as easy to write shitty OOP code as it is to write shitty any-other-paradigm code.
  • 0
    @rant1ng that legit made 0 sense
Add Comment