this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024

70 points (90.7% liked)

Programmer Humor

32482 readers

467 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
No NSFW content.
Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

TIFU by not using objects in my object-oriented programming coursework (lemmy.ca)

submitted 3 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

23 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 23 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 29 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I hate that schools basically teach students to over use classes for everything especially by using Java as a teaching language and then they get into the real world or grad school and we have to unteach them those terrible habits.

I'm so glad a lot of the newer languages (Rust, Go, Zig, C3, V) don't have classes in them at all.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Tbh if the average grad school student overused object oriented stuff they would produce vastly better code than the status quo.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I strongly disagree.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I've seen plenty of grad student code, abundance of OOP concepts was never an issue. Complete lack of any structure on the other hand....

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 hours ago

You can't teach experience.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm currently taking the very last CS class my major requires. I can't wait to leave OOP behind and focus on hardware completely.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

where do you plan to go to start that off after school?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

Either microcontrollers, operating systems, or something else involving RISC-V. That's still a ways off though.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 days ago

Strings are Objects, Doubles are Objects (that are than unboxed into primutives doubles)...

[+] [email protected] -10 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

You did the right thing. OOP was invented by people who were worried about their job security, to obstruct others from understanding their code.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 days ago (2 children)

OOP is pretty readable though. What would be the alternative, functional programming with no ORM?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Well, bad code is bad code regardless of the paradigm. I've just had bad experiences rewriting some horrible OOP codebases and opted out to use as much functional style as C# allowed me to.

The main problem, as I see it, is that OOP encourages unnecessary abstractions and inheritance. These should be used as little as possible, because they typically increase complexity and make code harder to read and untangle. As an example, I've seen people define interfaces that don't essentially define anything.

Another problem is that OOP encourages mutable member variables. It's very annoying to try to understand code where class C inherits from class B that inherits from class C. Good luck debugging when the methods of C modify a variable declared in A in subtle ways.

As an idea OOP is very appealing. When I was younger, I would be thrilled to start designing a class hierarchy and interfaces when encountering a new programming challenge. Now I just try to think how to make things as simple and modular as possible.

Edit: of course bad functional code is also bad code. It's also very annoying to try to understand code where functions pass badly named functions around as parameters and use 10 function compositions in a sequence.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

Right, most things are a fine thing in moderation.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Obfuscation Oriented Programming as I call it

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Damn I'm stealing that

[+] [email protected] -8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Good, OOP can suck my balls

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Balls.suck() is the correct syntax.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Don't you need to declare new Balls() first? Or do you suck() Balls static?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

BallsFactory ballsFactory = new BallsFactory();
ballsFactory.setSuckable(true);
Balls balls = ballsFactory.create();

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

All of this is okay, but it's not production ready. This is what real production code looks like:

SuckableFactory suckableFactory = new SuckableFactory();
Suckable balls = suckableFactory
    .setShape(SuckableShapes.round)
    .setCount(2)
    .create();

SuctionProvider mouth = SuctionProvider.getInstance();

SuckerFactory suckerFactory = new SuckerFactory();
Sucker sucker = SuckerFactory.create():

sucker.setSuctionProvider(mouth);
sucker.setSuckable(balls);
sucker.setIntensity(SuckerSuctionIntensities.medium);
sucker.suckSuckable();

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago

Python port:

from ballsucker import suck
suck()

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

Or I didn't using the correct naming convention!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Actually, it would be OOP.suck(ddplf.getBalls())