Oop ycombinator case against oop

category mistake
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24008557 case against oop overstated commentary

".....OOP is basically a blank canvas. It is always up to the artist to bring structure and reason to it. There is never one perfect answer for every case. That said, there are some general policies that seem to make sense, namely the alignment of your object models with the shape of the business problem you are trying to solve. Perhaps your problem domain has the idea of a Customer, but there are really 3 flavors of customer. Many developers would automatically do base/derived here, but in some cases it makes sense to have these as entirely distinct types. Making this determination one way or another is at the very core of the art of software engineering. These decisions have higher order impacts that are impossible to anticipate or understand until you personally go through a few times. Proper management of state is another major concern. In context of OOP, I find it best to centralize state along independent verticals of business functionality. Models like CustomerCheckoutState, UserSignupState, etc. When you centralize all of the state you wish to mutate as part of one business activity into one object instance, it becomes really easy to manage. E.g. serialize your state to database and back every time the user takes an action. You can also leverage the scoped injection functionality available in many DI frameworks to pass a per-user-action state instance into all relevant business services and UI components. If you can keep your business fact modeling & stateful domains under control, the rest will likely fall into place ...."

animats
"...One point I've made occasionally is that few languages support backpointers well. When B is a member of A, B often needs a back reference to A. Rust does that badly, because it doesn't fit well with the ownership semantics. C++ with move semantics does that badly, for much the same reason The same thing applies when A allocates and owns B. It's hard to get a clean, safe, reference back to A that cannot result in a dangling pointer, especially during deallocation. Object inheritance does that well. Finding the parent is easy and is done in a consistent way. The deletion process is done in a consistent, if not ideal, way. That's useful. If we had proper syntax and semantics for getting a reference back to the owning object, one of the use cases for inheritance would go away. Languages have "this" or "self", for accessing the current object, but lack "owner", for accessing the owning object. If a language offers single ownership, you should be able to find the owner easily. (Multiple inheritance is just a mess. Most, if not all, of the use cases for that are better done in other ways.) ..."

links
Oop

oop boxbase