I would guess that he doesn't realise that when he says some companies are still trying to get it after 10 years, that they missed one fatal thing....They were hackers/old school procedural programmers who knew nothing about OOP and probably didn't get trained.
Like any programming. You can get a compiler and start hacking away. After a few years you'll find you've re-invented all manner of things that have been around for years....OR you go get some proper training and come out 10 years ahead of the rest.
It's not a problem with OO, it's a problem with people just going ahead and using it without really knowing how to use it well. Without getting some really good training on how to make good OO programs. I was from the hacker mentallity. Self taught, learned what I needed. And guess what. I've been doing C++ for about 7 years now and I don't consider myself a great OO designer. I just got the job done how I knew and I was not (Am still not) interested in being an OO design guru - that doesn't mean learning isn't a good thing of you want to be great at what you do. I'm just happy to not be great at it (Programming theory is too boring)
He also states that you can do stuff in procedural programming that you don't need to in OOP. I AGREE, but guess what? I almost bet my house that any large program, done totally procedurally will actually be an OO program in the end just without using the tools of the language to help
You'll be passing in objects to work on to your Update() function rather than object.Update(). You'll be checking a type and calling a different Move() function (Hmm, virtual functions anyone?)
Aaron
Like any programming. You can get a compiler and start hacking away. After a few years you'll find you've re-invented all manner of things that have been around for years....OR you go get some proper training and come out 10 years ahead of the rest.
It's not a problem with OO, it's a problem with people just going ahead and using it without really knowing how to use it well. Without getting some really good training on how to make good OO programs. I was from the hacker mentallity. Self taught, learned what I needed. And guess what. I've been doing C++ for about 7 years now and I don't consider myself a great OO designer. I just got the job done how I knew and I was not (Am still not) interested in being an OO design guru - that doesn't mean learning isn't a good thing of you want to be great at what you do. I'm just happy to not be great at it (Programming theory is too boring)
He also states that you can do stuff in procedural programming that you don't need to in OOP. I AGREE, but guess what? I almost bet my house that any large program, done totally procedurally will actually be an OO program in the end just without using the tools of the language to help
You'll be passing in objects to work on to your Update() function rather than object.Update(). You'll be checking a type and calling a different Move() function (Hmm, virtual functions anyone?)
Aaron