HackerTube.dev

Object-Oriented Programming is Bad

Brian Will · 2.6M views · 2016-01-18 · 44:35

Open on YouTube ↗

If playback is restricted in your region, try opening the original video. Use Mark watched to add it to your marked videos.

Overview

Brian Will makes the case for procedural programming over object-oriented programming, arguing that OOP's promised encapsulation and decoupling are largely illusory. He analyzes real code examples and the problems of tying data to behavior in classes.

On Hacker News

HN returns to it as the go-to critique of OOP, recommended for explaining the costs of abstraction better than most written arguments.

Recommended by 13 HN people across 9 months · HN mentions 2016–2025

Topics

Search by tags

What people said

jmulho · 2019-12 · Strong recommendation

Looking at your top priority books I recalled a slide from one of Brian Will's videos on object oriented programming: "Object Oriented Programming is Bad" [VIDEO] . At around the 43:51 he pulls up a slide picturing several of these (and similar) books. Here is a rough quote: "I can tell you from personal experience of having read these books that you don't need to read them. They don't have answers, they aren't going to square the circle, and you are going to waste productive years of your life trying to live up to their ideals." Now that is just one rather controversial opinion, but we are talking about potentially wasting productive years of your life so I wanted to let you know that opinion is out there. That being said, it would probably be hugely beneficial to read a few of those books and then watch a few of Brian's videos (he has three or four on the topic) and sort out your own opinion. Also, Brian's other (not controversial) videos (dozens) are excellent for learning about programming. Also, Steve Krug's Don't Make Me Think is a keeper. I thought of it last night when I was checking out at a store. I stuck my debit card into the thing, entered my PIN number, then clicked the big blue button that said "Skip PIN". The woman behind the counter said "don't worry about it; everybody does that!"

Read the original HN comment ↗
ryanmarsh · 2017-11 · Strong recommendation

Code should be written first and foremost for humans to understand, and incidentally for compilers to understand. [LINK] If we can all agree about that then we have to ask ourselves if encapsulating data and behavior at the granularity of classes makes the most sense for human comprehension. In naive OO examples (Animal -> Cat) it does. In practice however, it's debatable (at best). I highly recommend this video by Brian Will who does a much better job explaining this problem than I could. [VIDEO] Douglas Crockford also does a good job of explaining some of the trouble with classes. [LINK]

Read the original HN comment ↗
cutler · 2024-11 · Recommendation

OOP is an industry of its own which generates a ton of incidental complexity. See "Object-Oriented Programming is Bad" by Brian Wills ( [VIDEO] ) and most of Rich Hickey's excellent videos, especially his keynote at Rails Conf 2012 where he basically told the Ruby crowd they're doing it wrong ( [LINK] ).

Read the original HN comment ↗

Sources

Video by Brian Will, played through YouTube.

Data and selection notes

HN summaries and labels may contain AI errors. HN dates refer to discussions, not video publication.

HN Library: HackerTube export (2026-10-31) and open-index/hacker-news. Upstream summaries and classifications may contain AI errors.

Views, duration and playback status refresh separately from the published catalog. When an update fails, existing data remains visible.

Selection checks
  • SaaS & AI candidates: Topic keywords do not match
  • Editor-approved picks: Editorial review is required

Rule matches identify candidates. They do not guarantee video quality or financial results.

About the library and its sources