OO vs procedural

Tell me about it.

- shitCase is good.
- Short names are good for variables.
- Medium-length names are good for functions, types, modules, etc.
- Java-length names are bad.

>>41
You mean superClassToGetIntsBecauseJavaWontGiveMeAFuckingPointerToOne isn't a good name?

>>38
What? What book? If there's a book that already said that with those words let me know for massive coincidence, it'll make me happy.

>>39
No, but you fail at trolling.

>>41
shitCase is shitty shit mostly Java fags use: it looks fugly, and it's ambiguous: fuckSister is shitCase, but fuck alone can't be told from lowercase. Butt ugly. CamelCase is the proper way, and it's not ambiguous except for single letters which you shouldn't be using for something that deserves CamelCase.

Short names are good for loop and index variables, temporary variables, and such, but if you name your variables for major application logic, non-anonymous functions, function parameteres (save geometry, Maths, and stuff like that), globals, or similar with single letters, then I hope I never have to work on your code.

And of course Java-length names suck. If you need five words to describe something, you're doing it wrong.

CamelCase is the proper way
Sure, if you're a VB 'programmer'.

>>43

Re: Casing.

Take your religious war elsewhere.  Here we care about programming, not your cute little opinion on largely irrelevant style preferences.

firstWordLow case is very very useful in Haskell, since underline is how you write something that's supposed to be read as being subscripted (since it doesn't mean anything in the language). And CamelCase is restricted to constructors and type, class, etc names.

Wouldn't use it in C, hell no. My left pinky is already sore enough from working the left shift key.

>>45
bahaha
new to /prog/ are you?

>>45
One word. Forced indentation of code. Thread over

>>43
but fuck alone can't be told from lowercase.
That's sort of the whole idea.

And if you need long variable names, then your variable scopes are too big.

>>44
I don't know Visual Basic. Do they use CamelCase for functions and classes? Then at least there's ONE thing they got right.

>>46
Hahaha, get a language that doesn't rely on hacks like that to parse and tell the type of identifiers.

>>49
No, that's not the idea. There's lower_case, there's CamelCase and there's UPPER_CASE for you to use as you see fit. A language shouldn't impose you a convention, but you should stick to a decent one. And a decent one would be CONSTANTS, FunctionsAndClasses, and other_variables, plus less significant variables which you name a, b, c, .... Of course, you shouldn't need neither BufferedCocksInputShitter nor buffered_cocks_input_shitter because if you can't explain what you do with less than 3 words you're failing or missing vocabulary.

>>50
Hahaha, get a language that doesn't rely on hacks like that to parse and tell the type of identifiers.

Haskell uses type inference, which your puny mind has no chance of comprehending!

No need for my/strict in Python, as the use of an undefined symbol raises an exception.
No wonder I think the majority of python fags are idiots.

That's incredible ignorant.

Python is fail, it's not OO enough (Ruby is), not functional enough (Lisp and Haskell are) and not useful enough (Erlang is). It's a failed mix of languages, I will never use this crap.

OO IS FOR FAGGOTS WHO NEED TRAINING WHEELZ. EVERYTHING CAN BE DONE IN PROCEDURAL MORE EFFICIENTLY.

>>53
Python's OO is good exactly because it's not OO-fanatic and doesn't get in the way when OO does not adjust properly to a particular problem. Right tool for the right job, fags.

I agree that it should provide more functional programming tools, but right now you have built-in lists (and dictionaries), first-class functions and classes, lexical scoping, lambdas, lazy iterators, coroutines, and you can do a lot of stuff, from the basic list operations (map, filter, fold, scan, zip, etc.) to function manipulation (currying, composition, etc.). You can write/pasta decorators to memoize or tail-recursion-optimize your functions. That's more than most languages offer.

As for usefulness, bullshit. Python's standard library and cheese shop are awesome.

>>55
I agree. Python is pretty useful even though it is not pure in any respect.

Python's random nonfunctionality is quite disturbing, though. Some standard methods (like list.reverse()) seem to be destructive just for the kicks, and they bite me every fucking time I use them.

Another thing I'll really fucking hate for as long as I will use Python is the fact that 0 == False, which doesn't work too well with enumerators.

>>55
You're a moron if you name variables in such a way that you can't tell what kind (not necessarily type) of objects will they reference in real time.

The hell indeed I   would believe nothing   they said you   need to go   teach and I   felt kind of   vocational schooling It.

It in each directory so the url   inference engine built   into the current   node and moves   the pointer to   the previous node   Used for retracing?

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boyAll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boyAll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boyAll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boyAll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boyAll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boyAll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

>>1
Fucking nice post! Badabababa I'm lovin' it!

OO is shit
procedural is better
named tuples do everything classes can and are faster and simpler

http://www.sinfest.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=6145&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60
fuck i hate feminists

Nice necro, Jack, as always.

There's no such thing as OO vs procedural. Mostly since the term OO is meaningless. Everybody has their own definition of it, and people always misunderstand each other when discussing it. In a similar way, procedural is used to name either the things not OO or anything imperative, and as such doesn't bear much weight.

The notion that you need classes and static typing for large projects is plain wrong. With large projects, you need to divide the problem into smaller problems, and solve them independently. You build small modules with clear requirements and responibilities, and larger modules in terms of other modules. This has been known since the olden days^[1]. You can do this with classes, but that's not the only way.

_{[1] On the Criteria To Be Used in Decomposing Systems into Modules}

You are all insane.
Real programmers uses interface programming.
Interfaces (with multiple inheritance) solves all the silly problems with duck typing and allows me too have compiler checks.
You also get better class diagrams withouth the fucking inheritance (C++, fuck you).

>>66
U MENA ROLES/MIXINS?

No i mean pure abstract base classes in a langauge that supports multiple inheriteance.
And on that note Multiple dimensional seperation of concerns and subject orietanted programming works and should be favored when  using (read, forced to) OO.

>>2
lol(x, y) vs. x.lol(y)
More like mynamespace_lol(x, y) (or something along those lines) vs x.lol(y) if you're writing something that isn't a toy program.

The idea of OO is good, but it's not a one size fits all solution, unlike procedural programming which is, but it's not so pleasant sometimes.

>>25
>The main reason the thing has managed to scale to this size is largely thanks to a number of hacks put in place to fake static typing

Sounds interesting. Could you give an example of the notation? Say you had,

def add(a, b):
    return a + b
in your work's codebase. How would you annotate static type information?

I stand neutral, but I find this funny:

"Microkernel" was the buzz-word of last year, so Minix is a microkernel. "Object-oriented" is this years, so Minix is object-oriented - right?

        - joe, Feb 3 1992, 3:33 am, comp.os.minix, LINUX is obsolete

>>70
raise TypeError

>>70
He would probably check if the type is correct at runtime, and also document which types that are accepted in some standardized way.

But the post you're quoting is from 2007.

>>73
Whoops, didn't catch that this morning. Thanks.

Imagine all the places these people have gone, the 4chan they've been through.

90% of 4channers probably weren't on here before 2008, maybe as late as 2009.

All that lost history, all those hamboigahs ;_;

>>75
I guess I'm the 10%. #occupyworld4ch xDDDDDDD

Also, I'm guessing you didn't just choose 2008 arbitrarily or even based on any real meaningful information. Rather, you chose the exact year you came here, to make it seem like you're an ``oldfag''. Don't kid yourself.

>>76
Moot has openly stated that with 4chan pop falling, in a few years we could get back to pre 2009/2008 levels.

I came here somewhen around 2003-2005, /d/ was nice and cozy back then.

I know you're being a dumb nigger, I don't know what I can't help but respond to your retardation. If only Fox News never reported on 4chan pedophila

>>77
lol look at me I'm such an oldfag xDDDD no one else discovered this site before me xDDDDD

I came here in 2012 xd.  My older brother (13) told me about it. Im planning on being a hacker for the isreali government xD so I can fight you guys XD

>>78
No.