Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: The Natural Philosopher Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript Subject: Re: Amazing Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2021 19:07:02 +0000 Organization: A little, after lunch Lines: 26 Message-ID: References: <1b9143cb-1874-438d-b1c5-691fe9a0c867n@googlegroups.com> <4a540cf4-fbe0-4529-91fc-a7b379328443n@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2021 19:07:02 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="c5f55bf4f9265148e1998c7c0cbf959f"; logging-data="16305"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ain5qzaGhQ1FtkFXH0NQt9wn71lO2WE4=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 Cancel-Lock: sha1:+4Uy6KSNK9P2OqO/dlI+bnlE17U= In-Reply-To: <4a540cf4-fbe0-4529-91fc-a7b379328443n@googlegroups.com> Content-Language: en-GB Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:39789 On 27/03/2021 16:49, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote: > On Saturday, March 27, 2021 at 4:59:22 AM UTC-5, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> Well the same goes for audio. >> By mashing the thing into object oriented format, the increase in >> obscure documentation alone is tenfold, and the obscurity of the >> 'objects' and 'classes' so produced is made satisfactorily >> incomprehensible. >> >> It simply raises the barrier to entry for coding and keeps coders in work. > > Do you have an actual argument against OOP directly or is it just ranting against bad code you've seen around the internet? Replacing OOP with some vague notion of unstructured, imperative+procedural programming is not an improvement.. > you can write unstructured bad code in any language OO purpost to make it impossible. In fact a bad programmer will simply create bad objects and classes and fail to document them properly -- It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. Mark Twain