Procedural/Functional Programming Versus Object-Oriented-Programming


Procedural/Functional Programming (PP) Versus Object-Oriented-Programming (OOP)

There are many who want to only support OOP but they never have any facts to justify their support. I Believe they are trained (or brainwashed) in universities to use and praise OOP and OOP only and that is why they support it so blindly. I don’t believe any of them have ever done well styled, structured, complex  and large PP Projects.

Other than protecting code from careless programmers in a team environment, OOP doesn’t offer much.

Personally working both in PP and OOP for years, I find that PP is simple, straight forward and more efficient, and I agree with the following wise men and women:

For OOP see:

A number of well-known researchers and programmers have criticized OOP. Here is an incomplete list:

Luca Cardelli wrote a paper titled “Bad Engineering Properties of Object-Oriented Languages” .

Richard Stallman wrote in 1995, “Adding OOP to Emacs is not clearly an improvement; I used OOP when working on the Lisp Machine window systems, and I disagree with the usual view that it is a superior way to program.”

Christopher J. Date stated that critical comparison of OOP to other technologies, relational in particular, is difficult because of lack of an agreed-upon and rigorous definition of OOP. A theoretical foundation on OOP is proposed which uses OOP as a kind of customizable type system to support RDBMS.

Alexander Stepanov suggested that OOP provides a mathematically-limited viewpoint and called it “almost as much of a hoax as Artificial Intelligence” (possibly referring to the Artificial Intelligence projects and marketing of the 1980s that are sometimes viewed as overzealous in retrospect).

Paul Graham has suggested that the purpose of OOP is to act as a “herding mechanism” which keeps mediocre programmers in mediocre organizations from “doing too much damage”. This is at the expense of slowing down productive programmers who know how to use more powerful and more compact techniques.

Joe Armstrong, the principal inventor of Erlang, is quoted as saying “The problem with object-oriented languages is they’ve got all this implicit environment that they carry around with them. You wanted a banana but what you got was a gorilla holding the banana and the entire jungle.”

Richard Mansfield, author and former editor of COMPUTE! magazine, states that “like countless other intellectual fads over the years (“relevance”, communism, “modernism”, and so on—history is littered with them), OOP will be with us until eventually reality asserts itself. But considering how OOP currently pervades both universities and workplaces, OOP may well prove to be a durable delusion. Entire generations of indoctrinated programmers continue to march out of the academy, committed to OOP and nothing but OOP for the rest of their lives.” and also is quoted as saying “OOP is to writing a program, what going through airport security is to flying”

References : Stack Overflow


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.