Well, object oriented is a pretty strong and established programming paradigm. And it was introduced mainly for code organization! And object oriented is not about classes. It's about encapsulation, polymorphism and inheritance. The alternative that the author is suggesting is STILL OBJECT ORIENTED! Just a different syntax. If he was suggesting a different paradigm, like function or data oriented, maybe the article would have been more useful.
The reason why the article is getting heated comments is because the author is asking for them. You can clearly see that from the graphics used in his article. Besides, the use of strong language, like "Don't use classes" gives you the feeling that you are going to behold a great change. In a field where there's no absolute right and wrong, you expect someone telling you not to do something to have a pretty strong argument. Honestly, I feel like I was click-baited.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Well, object oriented is a pretty strong and established programming paradigm. And it was introduced mainly for code organization! And object oriented is not about classes. It's about encapsulation, polymorphism and inheritance. The alternative that the author is suggesting is STILL OBJECT ORIENTED! Just a different syntax. If he was suggesting a different paradigm, like function or data oriented, maybe the article would have been more useful.
The reason why the article is getting heated comments is because the author is asking for them. You can clearly see that from the graphics used in his article. Besides, the use of strong language, like "Don't use classes" gives you the feeling that you are going to behold a great change. In a field where there's no absolute right and wrong, you expect someone telling you not to do something to have a pretty strong argument. Honestly, I feel like I was click-baited.