[kyralis]

You're talking yourself in circles. Your final sentence contradicts the remainder of your point.

Testing is limited when you do not have the ability to fully control state, and understanding can be limited when information is hidden. The impacts of this are determined by the information being hidden, its relationship to the function's behavior, and the documentation of that behavior relative to the calling context.

Limitations on the ability to fully control state are orthogonal to the method of information hiding (opaque function parameters, internal object state, etc).

This is not an OOP/functional discussion, this is a discussion about the tradeoffs inherent in information hiding. And let's be perfectly clear here: These are tradeoffs, not black and white clear wins in either direction.

[nightski]

I think information hiding is the wrong term. It should be hidden for modification, open for inspection. Functional programming naturally promotes this. OO does not. That's my opinion.

It's been a useful discussion though so I appreciate everyone's input.

[sixcorners]

So are you saying you no longer think OO inherently makes things harder to test?

I feel like it's difficult to talk about this without examples. The library I like thinking about when I think of passing around in a state variable is the lua C api.

https://www.lua.org/pil/24.1.html here is an example.

https://pgl.yoyo.org/luai/i/lua_State here are docs for the state variable's type.

This is pretty object oriented except that it's not using C++'s syntax sugar. You can't really do much with L except pass it into other lua "methods". The discussion up until your comment seems to be about the difference between using the syntax sugar and passing around a state variable yourself.

Information hiding and these other implementation details are kind of seperate. In my example you can't just configure L exactly how you want by messing around with it or inspecting its state directly. You have to go through accessor "methods".

I think if the argument is that OO promotes information hiding I can agree with that. I'm not sure about the point about the internal state becoming a part of the API though. APIs are contracts that can be met with different implementations right? If your implementation details are public then your contract is huge and inflexible.

[nightski]

Not exactly, I'm saying OO still makes it hard to test because it is an opaque blob of state. It would be really hard to use/test the LUA API for example without knowing it is using a stack underneath the hood. That detail leaks through the API whether you want it to or not. If it was switched to a FIFO queue that would completely change the behavior.

Since using this API makes an implicit constraint that it is using a stack underneath the hood, why not just expose the stack for inspection? What advantage does keeping it an opaque blob have? I agree you don't want code manipulating this stack (although if it is immutable as in FP this isn't an issue), but since the external code already knows it is a stack and relies on that fact then it is part of the public API already.

[cessor]

The term information hiding used in this thread is very confusing (to me, at least).

I believe David Parnas introduced it in 1971 to mean that a program's design was sliced along shared units of concerns (things that vary together) rather than "steps in a flowchart".

https://prl.ccs.neu.edu/img/p-tr-1971.pdf

I believe what you are trying to convey is called "data abstraction", as for example used by Reynolds, 1975;

mentioned here: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~wcook/papers/OOPvsADT/CookOOPvsAD...

explained here: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4612-6315-...