Object oriented programming didn't appear out of nowhere, it was a culmination of tendencies that were already found in previous non-OOP languages. It wasn't shoved down everyone's throat, people started using it just because it was a better way of doing what other languages already did.
You could use C++ without the object orientation part. Windows' APIs, for instance, never were object-oriented in the 90s. Often, however, you would end up programming a poor man's implementation of OOP features, put together using structs, function pointers and naming conventions such as ui_button_click. So in the end it was effectively advantageous to skip the middle man and embrace real OOP.
Object oriented programming didn't appear out of nowhere, it was a culmination of tendencies that were already found in previous non-OOP languages. It wasn't shoved down everyone's throat, people started using it just because it was a better way of doing what other languages already did.
If it was obviously better there would be no functional languages left. but there are.
If I set here and stare at nothing long enough, people might think
I'm an engineer working on something.
-- S.R. McElroy
Trollish article (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't shoved down everyone's throat,
It kind of was, if you wanted to program for most computers in the 90s, you used C++. (or Visual Basic).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Object oriented programming didn't appear out of nowhere, it was a culmination of tendencies that were already found in previous non-OOP languages. It wasn't shoved down everyone's throat, people started using it just because it was a better way of doing what other languages already did.
If it was obviously better there would be no functional languages left. but there are.