Content deleted Content added
Laiwoonsiu (talk | contribs) Replaced dead reference by working reference. |
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Alter: author, pages. Add: date, doi, issue, volume. Formatted dashes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Headbomb (alt) | Category:CS1 maint: extra punctuation | #UCB_Category 6/8 |
||
Line 9:
| title = Object-Oriented Simulation of systems with sophisticated control
| journal = International Journal of General Systems
| year = 2011 | volume = 40
| year = 2011 | pages = 313–343}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last1=Lewis|first1=John|last2=Loftus|first2= William|title=Java Software Solutions Foundations of Programming Design 6th ed|publisher=Pearson Education Inc.|year=2008|isbn=978-0-321-53205-3}}, section 1.6 "Object-Oriented Programming"</ref>▼
| issue = 3
| pages = 313–343| doi = 10.1080/03081079.2010.539975
▲
Many of the most widely used programming languages (such as [[C++]], [[Java (programming language)|Java]],{{sfn|Bloch|2018|loc=Foreword|pp=xi-xii}} [[Python (programming language)|Python]], etc.) are [[multi-paradigm programming language|multi-paradigm]] and they support object-oriented programming to a greater or lesser degree, typically in combination with [[imperative programming]], [[procedural programming]] and [[functional programming]].
Line 73 ⟶ 76:
Independently of later MIT work such as AED, [[Simula]] was developed during the years 1961–1967.<ref name=simuladev/>
Simula introduced important concepts that are today an essential part of object-oriented programming, such as [[Class (computer programming)|class]] and [[Object (computer science)|object]], inheritance, and [[Dynamic binding (computing)|dynamic binding]].<ref name=auto>{{cite journal
|author=Jan Rune Holmevik
|title=Compiling SIMULA: a historical study of technological genesis
|journal= [[IEEE Annals of the History of Computing]]
|volume=16
|issue=4
|pages=
|date=Winter 1994
|doi=10.1109/85.329756}}
Line 177 ⟶ 180:
[[Rob Pike]] has criticized the OO mindset for preferring a multilevel type hierarchy with layered abstractions to a three-line [[lookup table]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://plus.google.com/+RobPikeTheHuman/posts/hoJdanihKwb |title=A few years ago I saw this page |last1=Pike |first1=Rob |access-date=1 October 2016 |date=14 November 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180814173134/http://plus.google.com/+RobPikeTheHuman/posts/hoJdanihKwb |archive-date=14 August 2018 }}</ref> He has called object-oriented programming "the [[Roman numerals]] of computing".<ref>{{cite mailing list |url=http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.plan9/msg/006fec195aeeff15 |title=[9fans] Re: Threads: Sewing badges of honor onto a Kernel |date=2 March 2004 |access-date=17 November 2016 |mailing-list=comp.os.plan9 |last=Pike |first=Rob |author-link=Rob Pike}}</ref>
[[Robert C. Martin|Bob Martin]] states that because they are software, related classes do not necessarily share the relationships of the things they represent.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHiWqnTWsn4 | title=Uncle Bob SOLID principles | website=[[YouTube]] | date=2 August 2018 }}</ref>
===Dynamic dispatch/message passing===
Line 226 ⟶ 229:
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 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> 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]] |date=30 September 2019 |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===
| |||