[db48x]

You’ll get better results if you just search for “OOP large teams” rather than the specific phrase used in the video. You’ll get results like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming#Po... that point to specific references such as https://www.paulgraham.com/noop.html which says:

    Object-oriented programming is popular in big companies, because
    it suits the way they write software. At big companies, software
    tends to be written by large (and frequently changing) teams of
    mediocre programmers. Object-oriented programming imposes a
    discipline on these programmers that prevents any one of them from
    doing too much damage.

[Jtsummers]

He spends the first half of his presentation debunking the meme that OO was created for working with teams, not that it happens to be good for working with teams. Your quoted bit is not evidence of someone making the first claim, only the second.

[igouy]

> You’ll get better results if you just search for

That isn't what @bevyenjoyer told me to do. Moving goal posts.

That's why it's important for the OP to provide a reference, so from the beginning we are all talking about the same thing.

[db48x]

This is not moving the goal posts. Different people making the same claim may use different phrasing, and Google very much has recency bias. By searching for something slightly different we deprioritize the video we’ve already seen.

[Jtsummers]

It's not the same claim.

Muratori's statement (that he debunks in his talk): OO was created for teams.

Graham's statement: OO is useful for teams.

Those are distinct concepts, there's lots of evidence of statements like Graham's out there, and you've helpfully provided one. What igouy is asking for is evidence of the former claim.

[db48x]

A primary source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ahvzDzKdB0

[Jtsummers]

The only place "team" shows up in the transcript is here:

> So. Language design is not at all the same kind of work it was thirty years ago, or twenty years ago. Back then, you could set out to design a whole language and then build it by your own self, or with a small team, because it was small and because what you would then do with it was small.

Which is not about OO at all. Got an actual quote or is this link really just an interesting but irrelevant non sequitur?

EDIT: For those coming in later who don't feel like clicking random Youtube links, parent post is referencing Steele's talk "Growing a Language".

[db48x]

You know that thing people do where they say the same thing using different words? You’ll have to comprehend the words rather than merely pattern matching on a specific phrase.

In particular, note how he talks about growing the language by adding new things to it which are like the existing parts of the language. Contrast that with APL, where the existing parts of the language all had funny symbols, but new things added by the user needed alphanumeric names. In Java the language gives you a bunch of classes and interfaces and whatnot, and you extend the language by defining your own classes and interfaces. You don’t have to do this yourself, of course, since you can include libraries alongside your code. Those libraries can extend the language by defining new classes and interfaces.

As he says:

    43:54 Back then, you could set out to design a whole language and then
          build it by your own self, or with a small team, because it was small
          and because what you
    44:02 would then do with it was small. Now programs are big messes
          with many needs.
    44:07 A small language won’t do the job. If you design a big language
          all at once and then try to build it all at once, it will
    44:15 fail. You will end up late and some other small language will
          take your place.

[igouy]

Is that a source given during "The Big Oops: Anatomy of a Thirty-Five-Year Mistake"? Otherwise the author might reasonably say that isn't what they meant.

A lot of people have said a lot of things about OOP for decades. So looking at the context in which something was said is an ordinary sanity check.

[igouy]

It is not moving the goal posts.

It is moving goal posts.