this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024

69 points (87.9% liked)

Programmer Humor

32557 readers

735 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
No NSFW content.
Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

cat_programmer@lemmy.ml

TIFU by not using objects in my object-oriented programming coursework (lemmy.ca)

submitted 1 week ago by hellfire103@lemmy.ca to c/programmerhumor@lemmy.ml

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 24 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] LavenderDay3544@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I hate that schools basically teach students to over use classes for everything especially by using Java as a teaching language and then they get into the real world or grad school and we have to unteach them those terrible habits.

I'm so glad a lot of the newer languages (Rust, Go, Zig, C3, V) don't have classes in them at all.

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Tbh if the average grad school student overused object oriented stuff they would produce vastly better code than the status quo.

[–] LavenderDay3544@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I strongly disagree.

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

I've seen plenty of grad student code, abundance of OOP concepts was never an issue. Complete lack of any structure on the other hand....

[–] Kache@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Bad abstraction is worse than no abstraction

If the code is going to poorly organized, I'd prefer it to just be one single gigantic standalone script than some wrong and misleading arrangement of objects or functions that adds more complexity than they solve

[–] Chais@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

You can't teach experience.

[–] Dunstabzugshaubitze@feddit.org 13 points 1 week ago

Strings are Objects, Doubles are Objects (that are than unboxed into primutives doubles)...

[–] HStone32@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm currently taking the very last CS class my major requires. I can't wait to leave OOP behind and focus on hardware completely.

[–] CausticFlames@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

where do you plan to go to start that off after school?

[–] HStone32@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Either microcontrollers, operating systems, or something else involving RISC-V. That's still a ways off though.

[+] ddplf@szmer.info -8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Good, OOP can suck my balls

[–] vext01@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Balls.suck() is the correct syntax.

[–] RagingToad@feddit.nl 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Don't you need to declare new Balls() first? Or do you suck() Balls static?

[–] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

BallsFactory ballsFactory = new BallsFactory();
ballsFactory.setSuckable(true);
Balls balls = ballsFactory.create();

[–] whats_all_this_then@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

All of this is okay, but it's not production ready. This is what real production code looks like:

SuckableFactory suckableFactory = new SuckableFactory();
Suckable balls = suckableFactory
    .setShape(SuckableShapes.round)
    .setCount(2)
    .create();

SuctionProvider mouth = SuctionProvider.getInstance();

SuckerFactory suckerFactory = new SuckerFactory();
Sucker sucker = SuckerFactory.create():

sucker.setSuctionProvider(mouth);
sucker.setSuckable(balls);
sucker.setIntensity(SuckerSuctionIntensities.medium);
sucker.suckSuckable();

[–] whats_all_this_then@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

Python port:

from ballsucker import suck
suck()

[–] vext01@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 week ago

Or I didn't using the correct naming convention!

[–] luciferofastora@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago

Actually, it would be OOP.suck(ddplf.getBalls())

[+] tyo_ukko@sopuli.xyz -9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

You did the right thing. OOP was invented by people who were worried about their job security, to obstruct others from understanding their code.

[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago (2 children)

OOP is pretty readable though. What would be the alternative, functional programming with no ORM?

[–] electricprism@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago

Right, most things are a fine thing in moderation.

[–] tyo_ukko@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Well, bad code is bad code regardless of the paradigm. I've just had bad experiences rewriting some horrible OOP codebases and opted out to use as much functional style as C# allowed me to.

The main problem, as I see it, is that OOP encourages unnecessary abstractions and inheritance. These should be used as little as possible, because they typically increase complexity and make code harder to read and untangle. As an example, I've seen people define interfaces that don't essentially define anything.

Another problem is that OOP encourages mutable member variables. It's very annoying to try to understand code where class C inherits from class B that inherits from class C. Good luck debugging when the methods of C modify a variable declared in A in subtle ways.

As an idea OOP is very appealing. When I was younger, I would be thrilled to start designing a class hierarchy and interfaces when encountering a new programming challenge. Now I just try to think how to make things as simple and modular as possible.

Edit: of course bad functional code is also bad code. It's also very annoying to try to understand code where functions pass badly named functions around as parameters and use 10 function compositions in a sequence.

[–] LavenderDay3544@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Obfuscation Oriented Programming as I call it

[–] marzhall@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Damn I'm stealing that