Anti-OOP... stupid?

[Vijay Nayar]

Many reasons why non-OOP methodology creates problems come from how 
scoping works in a language.  In C, there's one global name-space, so 
declaring functions anywhere can lead to major problems:  unexpected 
dependencies, unclear sequence of execution, aberrant mutations, name-space 
conflicts, etc.

However in D, much like Python, true modules are supported by the 
language.  There is no "global" scope the programmer has access to, only 
the module scope which matches file scope.  This solves the name-space 
problem.

Other than that, make sure your module level functions and values only 
depend on other modules in a predictable fashion, do only a small set of 
mostly self-contained things, and are well documented.

Also remember that module-level variables have thread scope, so by 
default, each thread will have its own copy.

  - Vijay

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012, Zero wrote:

> Hello!
>
> I've recently started to work with D, and I'll start a "bigger" project soon, 
> using it. For a few days I've been thinking about the approach I'll take 
> here, and since I don't /have/ to use full OOP in D, I was wondering... how 
> crazy is it to not use full OP nowadays?
>
> Naturally one would use objects, but since this isn't C#, or Java, not 
> freaking everything has to be an object. The C style kinda feels more natural 
> to me. (I know, I know, C naturally can do some OOP like stuff, etc... but 
> you get the idea, mainly normal functions, some globals, yada, yada.)
>
> What I want to know from you people... is that stupid? To even think about 
> doing something like this? Basically mixing procedural and OOP? I know about 
> the dangers, and disadvantages, but if those don't scare one away, would you 
> consider it bad, if someone did this, on a larger project?
>
> I'm looking forward to your answers.
>
> Zero
>