|
|
|
|
|
by arp242
2152 days ago
|
|
That it's successful doesn't mean it's also a good idea. To quote Dennis Ritchy: "C is quirky, flawed, and an enormous success". I feel this could probably be paraphrased to OOP as well. OOP isn't super terrible, but it does mix some good ideas with bad ones. Newer languages tend to not be fully "OOP" but do include some of the better ideas from it. OOP isn't the end-goal of programming, it's a stepping stone. Same applies to functional programming by the way; a lot of non-functional languages include various features pioneered in functional programming languages. |
|
No, but success brings out nothing but contrarians. You don't get an article on hacker news saying everything is fine and working well even if that is the reality.
You can't make money selling alternative medicine by claiming that medicine works. Newer languages, in my opinion, are going backwards in a lot of ways out of fear of ideas that shouldn't be feared.