now, objects have the relation of code and data to drive their organization, which feels like *purpose*. compared to this, classes that only serve as containers for static methods feel empty and fake, bound only by human organizational concerns
-
-
Show this thread
-
this leads various of my esteemed colleagues to identify such classes as a vile antipattern, feeling instinctively that merely grouping things for their own convenience to be an impure and inelegant motivation unto them i say, verily, thine own self transcend
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This sounds absurdly costly for bad ergonomics depending on constructor and way the language allocates memory unless the compiler anticipates such stupidity.
-
strong agree i kind of have to restrain myself from going on tirades all the time about how """modern""" languages train people to treat malloc as a free operation
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
"Class that's just a container for static methods" is an antipattern, but it's one that Java/C# give you no tools to solve
-
it's fine PHP solves that with global functions classes that are just containers for static methods are fine
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
this is the impulse that drives people to fp land looking for great architecture wisdom only to realize too late that we don't know shit about commercial software architecture and never will
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
OOP offers a wide variety of solutions to these problems, most of which would not exist without OOP.
-
That stands for Ouroboros based programming, btw.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.