As I explained in Language Shapes Thought (February 10, 2010), object-oriented programming can hardly be praised too highly. However, the existence of such a powerful blessing has some unfortunate consequences. Like languages in which nothing can happen unless you first pay obeisance to the goddess of OO by declaring at least one class, even when you have nothing classy to say. Like profs determined to teach the first programming course from the beginning with objects. It’s this latter point that I want to talk about now.
Archive for February, 2010
Readers of this column may have noticed a certain predilection towards superannuated preoccupations. Like Software Verification (February 5, 2009). Like Structured Programming (April 22, 2009). On both of these topics I came out with a rather nuanced opinion, to put it euphemistically. Here I continue the tradition of the superannuated, except you’ll find me out-raving the consensus: I’ll argue that Object-Oriented Programming is not only the greatest since sliced bread, but even greater than what the consensus has been able to fathom.