Casey and the Holy OOP Grail

Also, why many large organization largely use OOP? Same answer as, Why many large organization hire 5000+ employee to write a software that can be written by 50.

I remember when I was first learning C and doing OpenGL programming back ~1999-2000 with a high school friend and we would LAN up at eachothers' houses to stay up all night coding and doing gamedev stuff, and eventually he went the way of C++ and started going on about OOP. I remember when I first started investigating the classes seemed OK, containing functions into them sounded handy, but beyond that my intuitive sense said that everything seemed so overly convoluted, as if it were putting the coder at a further distance from taking an idea and getting to a finished product. It seemed like an overzealous perversion of abstraction that missed the mark because it was just smoke and mirrors. Yea, in theory it's great, but in practice it's a nightmare. I do believe there needs to be some structure involved, established at the outset of a large project that a team of people will be working on, but I don't think OOP is the solution.

What a great analogy, this isn't talked about enough in my opinion.

Haha. The Indiana Jones comparison is so perfect.

I wonder if Mike knows he's been in a movie with Harrison ford!

i wonder what he had to say about the turbo pascal compiler

Oh Oh Pea.

Some code bases are absolutely fucking disgusting and make me want to puke but when you don't abuse it, oop is fine I think. Some design patterns are also really awesome like observer.

I believe that just as with say for example micro services OOP's main benefit is about organisational scaling where it's easier to have hundreds or thousands of people working on a single code base because a class or a service is a convenient way to define an encapsulated unit of some sort. That being said I agree that OOP is very often overused in ways that makes code harder to read more than anything else but I still think there are some positive values to it in some scenarios as well.

My problem is that OOP is a redundant term. Classes are just structs containing data and function pointers that need that data. That's it. It's just an idiom. I don't know how so many people have written entire books on programming with structs and function pointers.

OOP its hard to go wrong (or i should say harder) with organization of code. Its not to say its the best way to organize code but for many people its simpler to think in OOP terms, and have some sort of code structure. The average persons functional or procedural is a mess, with everything everywhere. When your average person does OOP it atleast kind of forces you to put things related to a thing in one spot. I have seen and worked on horrible attempts at OOP so its possible to fuck up. Basically the best implementations of functional or procedural programming will be faster and easier to maintain and expand than the best OOP implementation

that's a lot of words to basically say, "oop sounds cool in theory but usually it is misused"

It sounds funny from the person who created the most useless and huge material for learning programming. He's trying to get a Grail of education, but we all know that any newbie will not waste his time on all these numerous hours of video, you will literally get too little compared to the time spent on it. But nice try Casey, we will consider this bad experience in future education. 👍