Timeline for What makes OOP "good"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
3 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 8, 2016 at 15:08 | comment | added | Zelphir Kaltstahl | If using hierarchy as an argument for OOP, one should keep in mind, that high object hierarchies are anti pattern to be avoided, because of them not being very maintainable. | |
| May 19, 2013 at 10:11 | comment | added | user7043 | Modularization is older than even structured programming; it is orthogonal of the paradigm. Same for abstraction, composability. Now, you may argue that OOP does these things better than other options, but that is an order of magnitude less convincing and still quite arguable. I've never heard 5 and 6 cited as advantages, but "Continuity" sounds like a consequence from modularization and abstraction, and "Hierarchy" sounds like it's paradigm-independent as well (in fact, it sounds so trivial that I can hardly imagine a scenario where it's not feasible). -1 to counter +1 | |
| May 19, 2013 at 8:07 | history | answered | omarqa | CC BY-SA 3.0 |