No true Scotsman

You're to stupid to understand oop

 * http://wirfs-brock.com/blog/tag/object-programming/ "...My colleague found this rant rather depressing. He has assumed for years that modern systems are ideally coded using OOAD—but still has struggled to make it happen in his own projects. He asked, what do I think of this kind of criticism?..." refs https://web.archive.org/web/20130216124227/http://www.devx.com/opinion/Article/26776 by Richard Mansfield

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19407599 "...In my experience, the thing that's wrong about object-oriented programming is not the object-orientation itself, but the over-application of it..." You see it can never be the fault of oop itself, it is always the practitioner who is to stupid to figure out the oop is a restricted global , that must be reconstrued back into pseudo local state using graph morphisms from category theory.

https://archive.is/Khj0l, https://archive.is/wip/pfQvK, https://archive.is/wip/5zK6c

This is an example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy, it is rife within the attempted defense of stuffing the struct with procedures and having it take the structs as their first argument implicitly.

bad programmers
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11949692
 * > From several decades of observation, I have a theory that OOP programmers get caught up in a reward feedback loop around ceremony and prefabricated patterns, a quasi-religious endorphin rush from following formalisms that aren't strictly necessary to address the problem head-on.


 * On that we agree, but those are just bad programmers; their failures are not a critique of the OOP style itself.

Did these posters think in terms of functions stuffed inside a struct?

links
Richard Mansfield