[MantisShrimp90]

i love casey and I love this talk. Always good to see people outside of academia doing deep research and this corroborates allot of how I have understood the subject.

I find it funny that even after he goes into explicit detail about describing oop back to the original sources people either didn't watch it or are just blowing past his research to move the goal post and claim thats not actually what OOP is because they don't want to admit the industry is obsessed with a mistake just like waterfall and are too stockholm syndromed to realize

[zaphar]

Except that his talk is not anti-OOP. It's anti-a-specific-way of using OOP. Namely representing the Domain Model as the compile time hierarchy. He goes to great lengths that he himself uses OOP concepts in his code. OOP wasn't a mistake per-se. The mainstream way of using as promulgated by a number of experts was the mistake.

[mrkeen]

The problem is when you take out mistakes, there's not much left of OOP.

We take out 'dog-is-an-animal' inheritance.

We take out object-based delegation of responsibility (an object shall know how to draw itself). A Painter will instead draw many fat structs.

Code reuse? Per the talk, the guy who stumbled onto this was really looking for a List<> use-case, (not a special kind of Bus/LinkedList hybrid. He was after parametric polymorphism, not inheritance.

[vkazanov]

The problem is that once you exclude domain-specific hierarchy from the discussion, there's not much left of OOP.

It's just data + relevant functions. Which is ok.

That's all there is, really.