[ranran876]

You clearly don't work on a large code base =)

Most programming concepts are really about code organization and not expressiveness or the ability to express an algorithm clearly.

Object oriented programming only really starts to make sense when you are working on something that will take thousands of man-hours. If you are working alone, or on a small project is can be completely irrelevant.

The work flow you are describing is what MATLAB guys do. It's an absolute nightmare once the project gets too large. It is however very fast an flexible for prototyping.

[Silhouette]

You clearly don't work on a large code base =)

Whatever its other pros and cons, I find OO style tends to result in significantly larger code bases.

Most programming concepts are really about code organization and not expressiveness or the ability to express an algorithm clearly.

You imply a dichotomy where none exists. For non-trivial algorithms, the ability to express them clearly and the ability to organise code at larger scales are very much related.

[weavejester]

Even on large projects, I think there are often better ways of managing complexity. A lot the reasons for encapsulating internal state disappear if that state is immutable.

[munchbunny]

I would say that OOP makes a lot of sense on large code bases, but that it's also very easy (and dangerous) to get overzealous with object inheritance, interfaces, abstract base classes, etc.

[wtetzner]

I honestly find that a good module system (like OCaml's) is much better for organizing code than objects.

[EpicEng]

You have clearly never worked on a large, non-OO code base designed by competent engineers.

[notastartup]

> Most programming concepts are really about code organization and not expressiveness or the ability to express an algorithm clearly.

You could also separate your functions in different scripts with naming that is closely related. You've pretty much achieved code organization without the hidden scaffold that comes with OO codebase, only a chosen few with ridiculously large salary know about and newer developers largely having to pretend to praise with terminologies straight from CS text book because their monthly check comes from it.

Why do we need thousand different ways to write a simple CRUD web application in a language? Obviously OOP hasn't really done what it is advertised which is introduce a code organization to it's fully efficient state any better than functional coding.

If Java was supposedly so great with it's OOP as a core feature,where as humans we are supposed to model the extremely complex systems of reality into some fictional objects in our brain, where is Sun Microsystems now? It ended up as snake oil for a lucrative proprietary enterprise software company which is aimed at selling simple CRUD apps pleasing the business/government crowd. Have you seen the range of Oracle's suite of crap? It's literally insane, you have to pay to basically learn how to reinvent the wheel in their own terms and be pay a percentage back to them for speaking their language, as if landing business deals isn't hard enough already. Absolute garbage Java turned out to be. Even Android pisses me off. I used to hate on Objective C but I applaud Swift, there's no such innovation taking place because the JVM and Java is built entirely on a failing founding software philosophy, that the whole world is some simple interaction of objects interacting with each other, not it is not, there's quantum mechanics in play, with myriads of atoms that end up interacting with each other in a chaotic fashion that gives rise to some pattern our brain is supposedly good at finding.

Throw sand on a piece of blank paper, people will claim they see Jesus, and sell it on ebay.

[imanaccount247]

Big things like say, the linux kernel? Which is not OO and is better off for it?

[FLUX-YOU]

Ultimately our biases towards where the paradigms belong are a result of how the history has developed so far.

But hopefully we've learned that the guy selling OOP as the answer to everything is full of shit

[zo1]

"But hopefully we've learned that the guy selling OOP as the answer to everything is full of shit"

Replace OOP in your statement with "anything" and I'd say you're spot-on.