Talk:Object-oriented programming

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library

Criticism on the Criticism Section

On that section, it was mentioned the problems with OOP. However, no one suggested the appropriate alternative to it. It was easy to criticize, but impossible to propose viable alternatives, therefore i see no purpose on the existence that section (as in: waste of time reading it).

A quote from the section sums it up: "The OOP paradigm has been criticised for a number of reasons, including not meeting its stated goals of reusability and modularity and for overemphasizing one aspect of software design and modeling (data/objects) at the expense of other important aspects (computation/algorithms)." In the light of existance of such operating systems as OS X which has employed and heavily built on Object-C from its introduction in 2000 as iOS has, the criticisms are to be easily dismissed as non-sensical. 77.241.195.226 (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Personally I found it very interesting instead, because it led me to search for alternatives myself. But see, this is personal opinion, just as yours, and this is why that section should stay there regardless. Wikipedia should be free from controversy. Glittering Eyes (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

True that Wikipedia should stay free of controversies but even more true that Wikipedia should stay free of personal opinions. It is fair to present criticism as long it is from authoritative and well established sources and if is well circumstantiated and researched. However opinions of bloggers, obscure authors or reddit controversies do not count as relevant criticism. I think that currently the section on criticism is problematic because 1) some of the material it presents is circumstantial opinion and not proper research and 2) it does not present - as it is customary in well written Wikipedia articles - the responses or rebuttals to said criticism. Overall the section reads unbalanced and biased and I very much hope that it is revised. I may have a go at a more balanced and factual take on it myself, if I can find the time.

L0g1c4p3 (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

gh

1. REDIRECT google.com

oop

Read 27.34.47.42 (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)