Content deleted Content added
Stevebroshar (talk | contribs) |
Stevebroshar (talk | contribs) Collect criticisms |
||
Line 197:
=={{Anchor|Object-oriented source code}} Language==
[[File:Tiobeindex.png|thumb|350px|The [[TIOBE index|TIOBE]] programming language popularity index graph from 2002 to 2023. In the 2000s the object-oriented [[Java (programming language)|Java]] (orange) and the [[Procedural programming|procedural]] [[C (programming language)|C]] (dark blue) competed for the top position.]]
Many popular programming languages, like C++, Java, and Python, use OOP. In the past, OOP was widely accepted,<ref>{{cite book |last1=Brucker |first1=Achim D. |last2=Wolff |first2=Burkhart |title=ECOOP 2008 – Object-Oriented Programming |chapter=Extensible Universes for Object-Oriented Data Models |series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science |date=2008 |volume=5142 |pages=438–462 |doi=10.1007/978-3-540-70592-5_19|isbn=978-3-540-70591-8 |quote=object-oriented programming is a widely accepted programming paradigm}}</ref> but recently, some programmers have criticized it and prefer functional programming instead.<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> A study by Potok et al. found no major difference in productivity between OOP and other methods.<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>▼
[[Paul Graham (computer programmer)|Paul Graham]], a well-known computer scientist, believes big companies like OOP because it helps manage large teams of average programmers. He argues that OOP adds structure, making it harder for one person to make serious mistakes, but at the same time restrains smart programmers.<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, argues that OOP is not the best way to write programs.<ref name="Eric S. Raymond 2003"/>▼
Richard Feldman says that, while OOP features helped some languages stay organized, their popularity comes from other reasons.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Feldman |first1=Richard |title=Why Isn't Functional Programming the Norm? |website=[[YouTube]] |date=30 September 2019 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyJZzq0v7Z4&t=2069s |language=en}}</ref> Lawrence Krubner argues that OOP doesn't offer special advantages compared to other styles, like functional programming, and can make coding more complicated.<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> [[Luca Cardelli]] says that OOP is slower and takes longer to compile than procedural programming.<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| url-access=subscription}}</ref>▼
===Dynamic language===
Line 289 ⟶ 281:
Researchers have tried to formally define the [[Semantics (computer science)|semantics]] of OOP. [[Inheritance (object-oriented programming)|inheritance]] presents difficulties, particularly with the interactions between open recursion and encapsulated state. Researchers have used [[recursive type]]s and [[F-Coalgebra|co-algebraic data types]] to incorporate essential features of OOP.<ref name=poll97>{{cite web|last=Poll|first=Erik|title=Subtyping and Inheritance for Categorical Datatypes|url=https://www.cs.ru.nl/E.Poll/papers/kyoto97.pdf|access-date=5 June 2011}}</ref> Abadi and Cardelli defined several extensions of [[System F-sub|System F<sub><:</sub>]] that deal with mutable objects, allowing both [[subtype polymorphism]] and [[parametric polymorphism]] (generics), and were able to formally model many OOP concepts and constructs.<ref name="AbadiCardelli">{{Cite book| first=Martin| last=Abadi |title=A Theory of Objects| url=http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=547964&dl=ACM&coll=portal| year=1996| access-date=21 April 2010| isbn = 978-0-387-94775-4| publisher = Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.| author-link=Martin Abadi|author2=Cardelli, Luca }}</ref> Although far from trivial, static analysis of object-oriented programming languages such as Java is a mature field,<ref>{{cite conference |last1=Tan |first1=Tian |last2=Li |first2=Yue |title=Tai-e: A Developer-Friendly Static Analysis Framework for Java by Harnessing the Good Designs of Classics|conference=ISSTA 2023 |date=12 July 2023 |pages=1093–1105 |doi=10.1145/3597926.3598120}}</ref> with several commercial tools.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bhutani |first1=Vikram |last2=Toosi |first2=Farshad Ghassemi |last3=Buckley |first3=Jim |title=Analysing the Analysers: An Investigation of Source Code Analysis Tools |journal=Applied Computer Systems |date=1 June 2024 |volume=29 |issue=1 |pages=98–111 |doi=10.2478/acss-2024-0013}}</ref>
== {{anchor|Criticism}}Criticism ==
Some believe that OOP places too much focus on using objects rather than on [[algorithm]]s and [[data structure]]s.<ref name="stepanov"/><ref name="hickey"/> For example, programmer [[Rob Pike]] pointed out that OOP can make programmers think more about type hierarchy than composition.<ref name="RobPike">{{cite web |url=https://commandcenter.blogspot.com/2012/06/less-is-exponentially-more.html |title=Less is exponentially more |last1=Pike |first1=Rob |date=25 June 2012 |access-date=1 October 2016 }}</ref> He has called OOP "the [[Roman numerals]] of computing".<ref>{{cite mailing list |last1=Pike |first1=Rob |author1-link=Rob Pike |date=2 March 2004 |url=http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.plan9/msg/006fec195aeeff15 |title=[9fans] Re: Threads: Sewing badges of honor onto a Kernel |access-date=17 November 2016 |mailing-list=comp.os.plan9}}</ref> [[Rich Hickey]], creator of [[Clojure]], described OOP as overly simplistic, especially when it comes to representing real-world things that change over time.<ref name="hickey">Rich Hickey, JVM Languages Summit 2009 keynote, [http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Are-We-There-Yet-Rich-Hickey Are We There Yet?] November 2009.</ref> [[Alexander Stepanov]] said that OOP tries to fit everything into a single type, which can be limiting. He argued that sometimes we need multisorted algebras—families of interfaces that span multiple types, such as in [[generic programming]]. Stepanov also said that calling everything an "object" doesn't add much understanding.<ref name="stepanov">{{Cite web| url=http://www.stlport.org/resources/StepanovUSA.html| title=STLport: An Interview with A. Stepanov| last=Stepanov| first=Alexander| access-date=21 April 2010| author-link=Alexander Stepanov}}</ref>
OOP was created to make code easier to [[code reuse|reuse]] and [[software maintenance|maintain]].<ref name="realisticcodereuse">{{Cite web| first = Scott| last= Ambler| title = A Realistic Look at Object-Oriented Reuse| date=1 January 1998| access-date=4 July 2010| publisher = drdobbs.com| url=http://www.drdobbs.com/184415594}}</ref> However, it was not designed to clearly show the flow of a program's instructions—that was left to the compiler. As computers began using more parallel processing and multiple [[thread (computer science)|threads]], it became more important to understand and control how instructions flow. This is difficult to do with OOP.<ref name="flaws">{{Cite web| first = Asaf| last= Shelly |title = Flaws of Object Oriented Modeling| date=22 August 2008|access-date=4 July 2010| publisher = Intel Software Network| url=http://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2008/08/22/flaws-of-object-oriented-modeling/}}</ref><ref name="multithreadingisaverb">{{Cite web| first = Justin| last = James| title = Multithreading is a verb not a noun| date = 1 October 2007| access-date = 4 July 2010| publisher = techrepublic.com| url = http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/programming-and-development/?p=518| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20071010105117/http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/programming-and-development/?p=518| archive-date = 10 October 2007| url-status = dead| df = dmy-all}}</ref><ref name="multicore">{{Cite web| first = Asaf| last= Shelly| title = HOW TO: Multicore Programming (Multiprocessing) Visual C++ Class Design Guidelines, Member Functions| date=22 August 2008| access-date=4 July 2010| publisher = support.microsoft.com| url=http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=kb%3Ben-us%3B558117}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/some-advice-on-teaching-fp/|title=Some thoughts on teaching FP|author=Robert Harper |publisher=Existential Type Blog|access-date=5 December 2011|date=17 April 2011|author-link=Robert Harper (computer scientist)}}</ref>
▲Many popular programming languages, like C++, Java, and Python, use OOP. In the past, OOP was widely accepted,<ref>{{cite book |last1=Brucker |first1=Achim D. |last2=Wolff |first2=Burkhart |title=ECOOP 2008 – Object-Oriented Programming |chapter=Extensible Universes for Object-Oriented Data Models |series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science |date=2008 |volume=5142 |pages=438–462 |doi=10.1007/978-3-540-70592-5_19|isbn=978-3-540-70591-8 |quote=object-oriented programming is a widely accepted programming paradigm}}</ref> but recently, some programmers have criticized it and prefer functional programming instead.<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> A study by Potok et al. found no major difference in productivity between OOP and other methods.<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>
▲[[Paul Graham (computer programmer)|Paul Graham]], a well-known computer scientist, believes big companies like OOP because it helps manage large teams of average programmers. He argues that OOP adds structure, making it harder for one person to make serious mistakes, but at the same time restrains smart programmers.<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, argues that OOP is not the best way to write programs.<ref name="Eric S. Raymond 2003"/>
▲Richard Feldman says that, while OOP features helped some languages stay organized, their popularity comes from other reasons.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Feldman |first1=Richard |title=Why Isn't Functional Programming the Norm? |website=[[YouTube]] |date=30 September 2019 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyJZzq0v7Z4&t=2069s |language=en}}</ref> Lawrence Krubner argues that OOP doesn't offer special advantages compared to other styles, like functional programming, and can make coding more complicated.<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> [[Luca Cardelli]] says that OOP is slower and takes longer to compile than procedural programming.<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| url-access=subscription}}</ref>
==See also==
| |||