Has OO done more harm than good?
3
1
2
@ewolff wrong question. oo is a perfectly valid paradigm. neutral by default. people misinterpreting and/or misusing it may cause harm
1
4
. @ufried OO promotes shared state. Bad for concurrency. OO proposes common models. Bad for scaling development.
5
4
. @ewolff dunno. an akka actor is basically a pure object: encapsulating state and behavior. comm. via messages. fits perfectly. no probs
3
2
Replying to @ufried
@ufried @ewolff You could reasonably argue an actor is more of an object than an instance of a Java or C++ class

Sep 19, 2015 · 7:49 PM UTC

6
3
4
@ufried But I largely agree with @ewolff: OO was built with a single-thread, single-core assumption
2
2
Replying to @stilkov
@stilkov @ufried OK - show me classes and inheritance in an actor model.
2
@ewolff @ufried Who said those are necessary to make something OO? :-)
1
Replying to @stilkov
@stilkov @ufried @ewolff christopherhunt-software.blo…
Replying to @stilkov
@stilkov @ufried @ewolff @mariofusco disagree. An actor seems just like a better definition than the one we used for the last 20 years.
Replying to @stilkov
@stilkov @ufried @ewolff @mariofusco If OOP were about actors, smalltalk and the others implementation would have resembled erlang’s.
Replying to @stilkov
@stilkov @ewolff imo an actor gets closer to the original oo idea of objects communicating via messages than most of the java/c++/... stuff
2