I read it in: Software Design is Knowledge Building

From: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38650254

Microsoft’s new terminal application rendered text extremely slowly, like 10 minutes to cat 1gb of text slow.

Casey submitted a bug saying that it’s slow and should be much much faster. Microsoft responded something like “text is hard … … phd dissertation on rendering text”

Casey made a terminal renderer with more features than Microsoft’s renderer in a weekend, it performed orders of magnitude faster, had zero optimization work performed and he jokingly (and hilariously) titled the video “a phd dissertation”.

Next, the excuse parade rolled in and came up with all manner of excuses as to why Muratoris renderer was so much faster, so he made a follow up video addressing the excuse parade, as well as containing some very minor optimization.

Also note that Casey’s implementation isn’t even as fast as things could be. His optimizations are minor.

https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/issues/10362 https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEMXAbCVnmY6zCgpCFlgggR…

Here there’s a list of critiques against Object-Oriented Programming, I agree with most of which. This is a reference list, for people who never faced a critique of OOP, as well as a reference for me to refer to when people who only worked with OOO for the most of their lives are questioning how could anything be wrong with it (I worked for a while with people who had no clue that there are other possibilities for writing software, or even couldn’t imagine that procedural code could be sometimes better than an OOO variant.)

• Object-Oriented Programming is Bad [video] Funny enough that when I looked up for this video to add to this list, I found that it has a thumb-down mark on YouTube. Likely it was an impulsive reaction from me when I watched it when I was learning programming for the first time ever, and it popped up in the way.

  I agree with everything in this video and its follow-ups (they’re next in the list). OOP does not make a lot of sense at the first place, but most importantly, it’s extremely difficult to do it properly. It’s theoretically possible to abide by all the “good practices” in the OO world, and do readable, simple and modular OO code, but it’s extremely hard to make engineers follow all of these principle. It’s an expensive barrier that has proven itself over and over to be a great failure.

  This is my main argument against OOP; even if it theoretically works, from an engineering perspective, it is really bad. Having your tools/concepts to be easy, intuitive, and unlikely to cause abuse and bugs, is a great part of what engineering is about.

• Object-Oriented Programming is Embarrassing [video]
• Object-Oriented Programming is Garbage [video]
• Goodbye, OOP [medium]
• Object-Oriented Programming — The Trillion Dollar Disaster
• Arguments against OOP [c2wiki]
• “Clean” Code, Horrible Performance [video]
• Case against OOP is understated, not overstated
• OOP: the worst thing that happened to programming
• OOP: Anatomy of a Thirty-five-year Mistake [vide]