6 ms·

> but also wrong in a few places Would you be so kind as to elaborate how/where? (Other than the "arpanet in the 90s")

Jtsummers 1y ago
If I get bored with life I'll rewatch and take notes, that was the main one that made me chuckle and stuck with me. It was details around Lisp and a couple other things that were outside his explicit research scope (he specifically researched C++, Smalltalk, and Simula per his blog). Like claiming that everything in Lisp was based on lists (even in 1960 that wasn't true). I'd just expect more from someone who takes 30+ minutes to debunk a claim that doesn't matter and most people have never heard to be more particular in getting details correct. On the first part of the video, to be more constructive, it does not matter why a language or tool or whatever was made. The claim, that he debunks, is that OO languages were made to be good for working with teams. Whether it was made for that is immaterial, and no one needs 30 minutes of mostly historically correct video to get to The Truth(tm) of the matter. What's more interesting, and he never bothered to get into, is whether OO is actually good for working with teams (I can go either way, I've dealt with enough garbage OO programs to know that OO itself does not help things, but enough good OO programs to know that it can help things). To anyone who has not yet watched the video, the second half is interesting, the first half is mostly a waste of time.
- adamrezich 1y ago
  I dunno man even just learning that Bjarne thought Simula's classes were cool specifically because of the domain of what he was working on—and learning that he ran into the same “unity build” problem that anyone who's worked on a large C++ project has encountered, years before literally anyone else in the world had—was fascinating, something I'd never heard before, and very interesting context in the broader scope of “OOP.”
- Greduan 1y ago
  [dead]
- vouwfietsman 1y ago
  > Whether it was made for that is immaterial This is in the talk, he explicitly says that its often brought up that "OOP is made for large teams" "you're not using it as intended" "its not made to model your domain hierarchy" etc etc. The first 30 minutes is his reaction to that, disproving it. Whether thats true or interesting is a different question, but its explicitly stated in the video, at the start, before he goes into the history.
  - igouy 1y ago
    > "OOP is made for large teams" "you're not using it as intended" "its not made to model your domain hierarchy" Are there actual references for those quotes? Were they said by some kind-of expert or by a sales person or by cousin John? Are they strawmen set-up to knock-down.
    - bevyenjoyer 1y ago
      I highlighted "OOP is made for large teams", right clicked, clicked "Search Google for ..." and found the answer almost immediately. Give it a shot!
      - igouy 1y ago
        1) 'AI Overview "No, it's not strictly true that Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) is exclusively made for large teams, but it does offer significant advantages in such environments."' 2) 'Casey Muratori -- The Big OOPs: Anatomy of a Thirty-five' Still no reliable reference.
        db48x 1y ago
        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#Popularity_and_reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming#Po... that point to specific references such as https://www.paulgraham.com/noop.html 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.

If I get bored with life I'll rewatch and take notes, that was the main one that made me chuckle and stuck with me. It was details around Lisp and a couple other things that were outside his explicit research scope (he specifically researched C++, Smalltalk, and Simula per his blog). Like claiming that everything in Lisp was based on lists (even in 1960 that wasn't true). I'd just expect more from someone who takes 30+ minutes to debunk a claim that doesn't matter and most people have never heard to be more particular in getting details correct. On the first part of the video, to be more constructive, it does not matter why a language or tool or whatever was made. The claim, that he debunks, is that OO languages were made to be good for working with teams. Whether it was made for that is immaterial, and no one needs 30 minutes of mostly historically correct video to get to The Truth(tm) of the matter. What's more interesting, and he never bothered to get into, is whether OO is actually good for working with teams (I can go either way, I've dealt with enough garbage OO programs to know that OO itself does not help things, but enough good OO programs to know that it can help things). To anyone who has not yet watched the video, the second half is interesting, the first half is mostly a waste of time.

adamrezich 1y ago
I dunno man even just learning that Bjarne thought Simula's classes were cool specifically because of the domain of what he was working on—and learning that he ran into the same “unity build” problem that anyone who's worked on a large C++ project has encountered, years before literally anyone else in the world had—was fascinating, something I'd never heard before, and very interesting context in the broader scope of “OOP.”
Greduan 1y ago
[dead]
vouwfietsman 1y ago
> Whether it was made for that is immaterial This is in the talk, he explicitly says that its often brought up that "OOP is made for large teams" "you're not using it as intended" "its not made to model your domain hierarchy" etc etc. The first 30 minutes is his reaction to that, disproving it. Whether thats true or interesting is a different question, but its explicitly stated in the video, at the start, before he goes into the history.
- igouy 1y ago
  > "OOP is made for large teams" "you're not using it as intended" "its not made to model your domain hierarchy" Are there actual references for those quotes? Were they said by some kind-of expert or by a sales person or by cousin John? Are they strawmen set-up to knock-down.
  - bevyenjoyer 1y ago
    I highlighted "OOP is made for large teams", right clicked, clicked "Search Google for ..." and found the answer almost immediately. Give it a shot!
    - igouy 1y ago
      1) 'AI Overview "No, it's not strictly true that Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) is exclusively made for large teams, but it does offer significant advantages in such environments."' 2) 'Casey Muratori -- The Big OOPs: Anatomy of a Thirty-five' Still no reliable reference.
      - db48x 1y ago
        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#Popularity_and_reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming#Po... that point to specific references such as https://www.paulgraham.com/noop.html 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.