I am not sure of historical significance of what OOP is, but even Alan Kay seem to agree that modern definition of OOP is not what he intended[1]. But, for better or worse we are stuck with the principles.
We even have design patterns like Command, to workaround first class functions in "pure" OOPy way.
And for enterprise software development, I like it that way. It can make up a definition it wants and stick to it. I think it is better for a language's ecosystem and culture to have one dominant paradigm than becoming kitchen sink of programming languages.
As a java guy and think python is weird, I don't think this sucks.
But, I also agree that can serve as terrible intro to programming if you start programming right away without understanding the basics of abstractions. But, often when we have tools either designed for a purpose in mind or a dominant paridigm or reaction to existing set of tooling, this can result in understandable yet extreme abstractions.
Java is designed with OOP in mind and it kind of makes sense to have the user to think in terms of lego blocks of interfaces. Every method or class needs to have clear understanding of its users.
public - software handle is for all users
protected - software handle for current and extending classes
default - software is exposed to current package
private - software is restricted to be used in current class alone and nowhere else
So, the beginning of java programming starts with interface exposed to the user or other programmers. Is it weird and extreme. Yes. At least, it is consistent.
Another thing that impedes us sunken cost fallacy. Classic "Simple vs easy" change. Even if a design is comparatively simpler, it is harder to make such change for small feature.
We had a project which is supposed to convert live objects back into code with autogenerated methods. The initial design was using a single pass over the object graph and creating abstractions of HDL and combining method blocks in the same pass.
That is a big hairy code with lot of issues. Simpler would be to handle one problem at a time - method generation in one pass and then convert the methods to HDL. But, getting approval for a deployed app is so hard. Particularly when it is a completer rewrite.
Thanks a lot. It is really fun. But, I don't have adult company in my neighborhood.
If take "What if I don't became great with this" anxiety out of the equation, it feels just more fun and life seems a little more colorful being a beginner.
> I was decent in math and Bill was brilliant, but I spoke from experience at Wazzu. One day I watched a professor cover the black board with a maze of partial differential equations, and they might as well have been hieroglyphics from the Second Dynasty. It was one of those moments when you realize, I just can’t see it. I felta little sad, but I accepted my limitations. I was OK with being a generalist.
> For Bill it was different. When I saw him again over Christmas break, he seemed subdued. I asked him about his first semester and he said glumly, “I have a math professor who got his PhD at sixteen.” The course was purely theoretical, and the homework load ranged up to thirty hours a week. Bill put everything into it and got a B. When it came to higher mathematics, he might have been one in a hundred thousand students or better. But there were people who were one in a million or one in ten million, and some of them wound up at Harvard. Bill would never be the smartest guy in that room, and I think that hurt his motivation. He eventually switched his major to applied math.
Yeah, but these are also about people who are not even starting off at a field. These are teenagers. It really stood out that they can think where they can make most impact in the world at such an young age.
Excuse me for generalizing the point. That's not fair to do just based on these anecdotes. But, I can also understand their perspective.
Paul continued to be a guitar player all his life and hosted jamming sessions in his home. I started with piano very late in my life and not very regular, but I am just happy to join the fun party.
I think there are some similar remarks on Bill Gates in another good memoir by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen [1]. Even on his school days, Gates was so sure he will not have a competition on Math, since he was the best at math at his school. When he went to Harvard, (which I somehow remember as Princeton(!) as pointed out by a commenter) and saw people better than him, he changed to applied math from Pure math. (Remarks are Paul's)
> I was decent in math and Bill was brilliant, but I spoke from experience at Wazzu. One day I watched a professor cover the black board with a maze of partial differential equations, and they might as well have been hieroglyphics from the Second Dynasty. It was one of those moments when you realize, I just can’t see it. I felta little sad, but I accepted my limitations. I was OK with being a generalist.
> For Bill it was different. When I saw him again over Christmas break, he seemed subdued. I asked him about his first semester and he said glumly, “I have a math professor who got his PhD at sixteen.” The course was purely theoretical, and the homework load ranged up to thirty hours a week. Bill put everything into it and got a B. When it came to higher mathematics, he might have been one in a hundred thousand students or better. But there were people who were one in a million or one in ten million, and some of them wound up at Harvard. Bill would never be the smartest guy in that room, and I think that hurt his motivation. He eventually switched his major to applied math.
Even Paul admits, he was torn between going into Engineering or Music. But, when he saw his classmate giving virtuoso performance, he thought "I am never going to as great as this." So, he chose engineering.
I really "Idea Man" by Paul Newman. Though survivorship bias is apparent, it was insightful read on how Apple an Msft came to be and why they are what they are. For example, why closed system was important and worked for Apple.
But, I do not know if this metric is quite 'complete'. Because, I am very sure, wrapping concepts in mind is more difficult than understanding the code.
I am not saying the code cannot be made better or more clear. But, it also depends on who you are writing to. Somebody who is not familiar with certain style of programming cannot easily read the code of certain level of complexity.
When I was hacking away my first big program, I could not write functions. Or find reading functions easy. The whole thing was a big wall of glorified assembly sewn together by labels. I am not sure why I was like that then, but I found concepts 'functions' and recursion or any other conceptual stuff really hard. My code was, in its own twisted way, 'most simple' and utterly unreadable.
I find the same sort of difficulties while reading some FP snippets. I confess it was a very short affair, but I had some difficulty reading it and even when I understood, I could not just write or think code in the same style.
There are ways to make your code better, your intentions clear but 'can be understood by a first year CS freshman' is bit abstract criterion.
It is kind of like, vocabulary and prose. You can make your prose clear. But, people have to work on the vocabulary on their own.
> The best code is no code at all.
This is completely agreeable.
Edit : Changed some poor word choices. Added an analogy.