Content deleted Content added
→Objects: not sure how relevant the Date&Darwen reference is, but it doesn't look much like traditional OO |
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Altered template type. Add: website, isbn, series. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Headbomb | #UCB_toolbar |
||
Line 169:
=== Popularity and reception ===
Many widely-used languages, such as C++, Java, and Python, provide object-oriented features. Although in the past object-oriented programming was widely accepted,<ref>{{cite
digm}}</ref> more recently essays criticizing object-oriented programming and recommending the avoidance of these features (generally in favor of [[functional programming]]) have been very popular in the developer community.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Cassel |first1=David |title=Why Are So Many Developers Hating on Object-Oriented Programming? |url=https://thenewstack.io/why-are-so-many-developers-hating-on-object-oriented-programming/ |work=The New Stack |date=21 August 2019}}</ref> [[Paul Graham (computer programmer)|Paul Graham]] has suggested that OOP's popularity within large companies is due to "large (and frequently changing) groups of mediocre programmers". According to Graham, the discipline imposed by OOP prevents any one programmer from "doing too much damage".<ref name="graham">{{Cite web| last=Graham| first=Paul| title=Why ARC isn't especially Object-Oriented.| url=http://www.paulgraham.com/noop.html| publisher=PaulGraham.com| access-date=13 November 2009| author-link=Paul Graham (computer programmer)}}</ref> [[Eric S. Raymond]], a [[Unix]] programmer and [[open-source software]] advocate, has been critical of claims that present object-oriented programming as the "One True Solution".<ref name="Eric S. Raymond 2003"/>
Richard Feldman argues that these languages may have improved their modularity by adding OO features, but they became popular for reasons other than being object-oriented.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Feldman |first1=Richard |title=Why Isn't Functional Programming the Norm? |website=[[YouTube]] |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyJZzq0v7Z4&t=2069s |language=en}}</ref> In an article, Lawrence Krubner claimed that compared to other languages (LISP dialects, functional languages, etc.) OOP languages have no unique strengths, and inflict a heavy burden of unneeded complexity.<ref name="lawrence">{{Cite web| last=Krubner| first=Lawrence| title=Object Oriented Programming is an expensive disaster which must end| url=http://www.smashcompany.com/technology/object-oriented-programming-is-an-expensive-disaster-which-must-end| publisher=smashcompany.com| access-date=14 October 2014| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141014233854/http://www.smashcompany.com/technology/object-oriented-programming-is-an-expensive-disaster-which-must-end| archive-date=14 October 2014| url-status=dead}}</ref> A study by Potok et al. has shown no significant difference in productivity between OOP and procedural approaches.<ref>{{Cite journal| url=http://www.csm.ornl.gov/~v8q/Homepage/Papers%20Old/spetep-%20printable.pdf| title=Productivity Analysis of Object-Oriented Software Developed in a Commercial Environment| last=Potok| first=Thomas|author2=Mladen Vouk |author3=Andy Rindos |journal=Software: Practice and Experience | volume=29|issue=10|pages=833–847 |year=1999 |access-date=21 April 2010| doi=10.1002/(SICI)1097-024X(199908)29:10<833::AID-SPE258>3.0.CO;2-P| s2cid=57865731}}</ref> [[Luca Cardelli]] has claimed that OOP code is "intrinsically less efficient" than procedural code and that OOP can take longer to compile.<ref name="badprop">{{Cite journal| first=Luca| last=Cardelli|title=Bad Engineering Properties of Object-Oriented Languages |url=http://lucacardelli.name/Papers/BadPropertiesOfOO.html| year=1996| access-date=21 April 2010| doi=10.1145/242224.242415| journal = ACM Comput. Surv.| volume=28| issn = 0360-0300| pages = 150–es| author-link=Luca Cardelli| issue=4es| s2cid=12105785}}</ref>
===OOP in dynamic languages===
| |||