I feel like any discussion of OOP has to be qualified to some degree, because often when I hear "OOP" they're usually talking about writing code using Java or C#. So although this is kind of a strawman, I think that the OOP of Java and C# is incredibly rigid and antiquated, and I don't think it's a coincidence that modern languages have abandoned a lot of features from these languages, namely inheritance (and Java even has lambda functions now! Quelle horreur!). These languages also promised far more than they delivered, and in languages like these, a more "object-oriented" solution would be far more contrived when a single or couple of functions would suffice.
But I don't think OOP is all bad! Things like interfaces are great in statically typed languages, and they make languages like Go and Rust very generic. I do think Smalltalk does OOP better, though, and is what OOP should really strive to be.
I think functional programming is hard, and that's its biggest con. At least given the way I was educated in computer science, there's no "easy" approach to learning functional programming. That said I have gotten much much more mileage out of code that is more functional than object-oriented. It's way easier to write generic, simple, and testable code when your code is just a bunch of simple functions that you can compose and build your way up to more complicated behavior.
I think languages like Rust or Go strike a good balance for most uses: static typing with functional features. Sometimes you need stateful objects, and so you can write a struct with methods, but you're not obligated to (in fact, when it comes to a language like JavaScript, the language I write most, that's my rule of thumb: do I need state? if yes, I'll write a class, if not, it's a function. Most of my code lives in functions).
Finally, I do think functional programming is wildly underappreciated and has a lot more to offer than people give it credit for. Immutability has saved my skin more times than I can count, for example. I think a lot of languages could benefit from adding more functional aspects, honestly.
We'll let's just say OOP as in Java and C# an take it from there. Even though Alan Kay did say he regrets calling it OO and wanted something like message driven and ended up with some explenation of Actors ppl call OO anything with classes. Late Armstrong did say Erlang was OO more than others and quoted Kay but people that use Erlang will smash your head if you call it OO.
I love people and everything good. And I want to positively influence people and be influenced by positive people. I am in love with software development using .NET Technologies.
I apologize in advance for my rambling response.
I feel like any discussion of OOP has to be qualified to some degree, because often when I hear "OOP" they're usually talking about writing code using Java or C#. So although this is kind of a strawman, I think that the OOP of Java and C# is incredibly rigid and antiquated, and I don't think it's a coincidence that modern languages have abandoned a lot of features from these languages, namely inheritance (and Java even has lambda functions now! Quelle horreur!). These languages also promised far more than they delivered, and in languages like these, a more "object-oriented" solution would be far more contrived when a single or couple of functions would suffice.
But I don't think OOP is all bad! Things like interfaces are great in statically typed languages, and they make languages like Go and Rust very generic. I do think Smalltalk does OOP better, though, and is what OOP should really strive to be.
I think functional programming is hard, and that's its biggest con. At least given the way I was educated in computer science, there's no "easy" approach to learning functional programming. That said I have gotten much much more mileage out of code that is more functional than object-oriented. It's way easier to write generic, simple, and testable code when your code is just a bunch of simple functions that you can compose and build your way up to more complicated behavior.
I think languages like Rust or Go strike a good balance for most uses: static typing with functional features. Sometimes you need stateful objects, and so you can write a
structwith methods, but you're not obligated to (in fact, when it comes to a language like JavaScript, the language I write most, that's my rule of thumb: do I need state? if yes, I'll write a class, if not, it's a function. Most of my code lives in functions).Finally, I do think functional programming is wildly underappreciated and has a lot more to offer than people give it credit for. Immutability has saved my skin more times than I can count, for example. I think a lot of languages could benefit from adding more functional aspects, honestly.
We'll let's just say OOP as in Java and C# an take it from there. Even though Alan Kay did say he regrets calling it OO and wanted something like message driven and ended up with some explenation of Actors ppl call OO anything with classes. Late Armstrong did say Erlang was OO more than others and quoted Kay but people that use Erlang will smash your head if you call it OO.
C# and Java are very powerful and popular programming languages