[plinkplonk]

"Saying "Are we still doing OOP?" is like saying "Are we still using categorization and set theory" which sounds to me a LOT like "Are we still using arithmetic?""

OO is hardly equivalent, and not as fundamental (or anywhere near fundamental) as Set Theory, leave alone Arithmetic. The implied equivalence is misleading.

You can use "categorization" and Set theory to design programs with never an Object in sight.

Types and (mathematical) functions are both defined using Set Theory as are Relations (as in relational databases). You could program in Haskell with only types and functions and monads and such with no "object oriented design". The primary difficulty for people who've only done (what some call) "OOP" is forgetting all the OO technique they learned.

At best you could say that objects (for various definitions of "OO") could also be expressed with Sets and (mathematical) functions and such. ALmost every programming language feature could be so expressed, that isn't saying much.

There is no specifically "Object Oriented" super technique that transcends all languages (both OO and non OO) and is applicable in all of them. You'd be cutting against the grain of many languages if you tried to think in OO while using them. LIke Fortan, you can write "OO" in any language and it isn't always a good thing to do.

Not defending the author of TFA ( I don't read these "Ohh technique X or language Y is so outdated" type of articles any more) but the sentence quoted (' "Are we using OO" is lik e "Are we using Set Theory" ') is as generic and misleading as anything the author claimed. Balance in all things.

[DanielBMarkham]

Clarification: you don't need an object to do OOP.

Here's a wonderful example. Let's say you're in C. You start writing code and continuously refactor as you go along. What most people find is, after a good bit of coding and refactoring, you end up with code grouped in modules with public and private functions, public and private data, etc. You can have data abstraction, encapsulation, modularity, polymorphism, and inheritance -- all to varying degrees, depending on the problem and solution.

OOP takes that categorization and set work and makes it part of the language. But programming in objects -- true OOP - does not require a language that provides objects. In fact, it's the other way around: because people programmed in objects, languages started providing that capability. Where folks get lost in the woods is where they think the language features are OOP instead of the conceptual work. Languages are just varying levels of syntactic sugar on top of the core tools.

Hope that clears it up for you

[plinkplonk]

" But programming in objects -- true OOP - does not require a language that provides objects. "

Without getting into some mystical definition of "True OOP" You don't need any OOP to program or design.

"data abstraction, encapsulation, modularity, polymorphism, and inheritance"

None of these things (except inheritance maybe) is specific to OOP. All of them occur in all kinds of languages and paradigms with no objects or "OOP".

As to

" (with C programs) after a good bit of coding and refactoring, you end up with code grouped in modules with public and private functions, public and private data, etc. you end up with code grouped in modules with public and private functions, public and private data"

Sure if you refactor that way.

You could also end up with a collection of rules (as in Prolog) , polymorphic types and functions (as in Haskell), communicating processes (Occam/Erlang) etc with no "OOP" anywhere. (unless you want to claim any and all use of polymorphism or abstraction of any kind is indicative of some kind of all pervading mystical "True OOP" technique. There is no "True OOP" underlying all use of (say) abstraction or polymorphism).

I think people who've done only OO or primarily OO are as bad as people who've never done any OO or rarely do any OO in making outrageous claims.

Grandiose claims opposing or favoring specific subsets of programming technique [ example 1 --> "Are we still using OO?WTF" example 2 --> "Saying are we using OO is like saying are we using Arithmetic" don't stand up to scrutiny.

Objects are a useful abstraction. So are functions, logic staements, relations, processes, polymorphic types .. . Each in its place. (and balance in claims ;-) )

[DanielBMarkham]

Plink I'm not really sure what you're going on about here.

Yes, you can refactor in lots of ways. Some rely more on OOP, some on FP, some on rules-based or constraint-based programming, etc. This is my point -- the tools are there regardless of the language features. Some languages just make this easier or more difficult. No mysticism required :)

Objects are a useful abstraction at times, but "object" does not and should not map directly to some language feature. If you think that then perhaps you've done a great job of learning a language and not-so-good-a-job learning OOP.

As fas the "people who've done only OOP" part? I take it you mean me? Dude I've only been doing functional programming in F# for the last couple of years or so. Found that my OOP chops came in very handy with data structures and functional composition. But perhaps you didn't mean me. I'm not sure.

I'm done here. The only reason I took this thread deeper is that there is a useful thing for HN'ers to learn. The tool is bigger (and more useful) than the language. Don't confuse the concept with the application.

[loup-vaillant]

Looking at this thread, it seems your main disagreement is about the definition of OOP. I won't provide one, mind you. But such disagreements are so widespread that we may want to stop using the term OOP altogether, and only use more narrowly defined terms.

[DanielBMarkham]

No rhetorical trick intended.

It's a definition thing, sure. But it's important to realize that there's no trickery going on here. There's a very important point.

I get this all the time, and from all aspects of software engineering. As an example, it's become quite fashionable to say something along the lines of "use-cases suck!"

However use-case analysis is just a way of thinking about system functionality. Most people, when pressed, actually mean "we hate these monstrous word templates and rigorous bullshit that people make us do and call them use cases"

To which I do not disagree. But that's confusing the application with the tool again. To insist that they are the same is to throw out huge hunks of software engineering simply because a few people got into them and made them overly-complicated and onerous to use.

Or put another way: I'm sure some folks would like to describe OOP in terms of overly-complex class diagrams, lots of wiring, un-manageable systems, yadda yadda. Some other folks would like to describe OOP in terms of small systems pragmatically created bottom-up. It can be any or all of that. OOP is actually constructing solution code in a pattern that supports encapsulation, polymorphism, information hiding, etc. The idea is a conceptual tool, a code construction pattern of thinking. The implementation can be all sorts of things. Various implementations suck to more or less degree. But that's really not important. What's important is whether this tool is useful right now, do I know how to use it, and which parts work and which parts get in the way of where I'm going.

I understand that this can sound like sophistry, but it's not.

[stonemetal]

OOP is actually constructing solution code in a pattern that supports encapsulation, polymorphism, information hiding, etc. The idea is a conceptual tool, a code construction pattern of thinking.

Yeah except Alan Kay, you know that guy who invented OOP, says everything you mention there is the overly complex BS unOOP. OOP is late binding and message passing. It isn't the hair splitting you seem to think it is, it truly different philosophies about programming. What you are calling OOP is more like Structured Programming Redux, strong on the structure and light on the dynamic message passing and late binding.

[loup-vaillant]

> No rhetorical trick intended.

(I suppose you refer to the "just a tool" sentence.) I'm sure of that. It's just that its an easy sentence to throw up while not really thinking about it. I see it often, and it rarely actually says something. And its effect, whether intended or not, is often the rhetorical trick I spoke of.

About the rest, I agree: when (if) disagreeing parties manage to set definitions straight, they often find that they actually agree.