|
|
|
|
|
|
by whatsakandr
903 days ago
|
|
|
I've found OOP can increase coupling. I actually have this problem at work.
Say I have class A and B. I could write `int x = A:FunctionOfAandB(B b)`, but in this case. So now A depends on B. It would be much preferable to have free function of A and B. A and B are no longer dependent on each other, just the function to compute the result dependent on A and B. IMO: The real thing of value OOP provides is calling with object.method. A lot of OOP code looks like `void obj.mutate()`. If you pulled that to what's really happening in "procedural" syntax, `mutate(obj)`, that exposes it for the bad code it is. |
|
|
I'm confused here, are you saying there is value in the object.method() syntax? D language for example has Uniform Function Call Syntax[0] where f(x) can be written as x.f()
(I missed this syntax in C, and tried to approximate it by putting functions in structs, but you still have to pass the caller as an arg so it ends up being player.update(player) which looks stupid, so at that point player_update(player) seems an acceptable alternative)
Later you say obj.mutate() is bad code, are you referring only to methods which mutate the object?
[0] https://tour.dlang.org/tour/en/gems/uniform-function-call-sy...