Joe Armstrong said that in the context of code re-usability in OOP. At first it took me a while to understand what he actually meant with that, because OOP is about making code re-usable, after all. But then I read an article that explained this quote in great length and other potential pitfalls of OOP, and then it all started to make sense.
I would write all of this in my own words, but it would become really long and I don't have the time at the moment. I tried to find the original article I read, but I'm unable to, but here is a similar article I just found: https://medium.com/@cscalfani/goodbye-object-oriented-progra...
I'd understand if the inflammatory writing style and the memes are not yours, but I skimmed through it and I think it does explain some of the problems well. I'm sure there are better written articles on this subject, but I have to leave now unfortunately.
Looking at that article, it seems nearly every complaint is about inheritance. But it is quite possible to use objects with composition. In fact, I think 'composition over inheritance' has been a commmonplace since the late 1990s.
I definitely also read that one back then (I keep stumbling upon this website every now and then, it contains some really interesting articles), but I remember that it was too vague for me to understand his point about why OOP sucks. I searched further until I found the article I mentioned, it was much longer and more detailed than this one, and not by Joe himself.
I would write all of this in my own words, but it would become really long and I don't have the time at the moment. I tried to find the original article I read, but I'm unable to, but here is a similar article I just found: https://medium.com/@cscalfani/goodbye-object-oriented-progra...
I'd understand if the inflammatory writing style and the memes are not yours, but I skimmed through it and I think it does explain some of the problems well. I'm sure there are better written articles on this subject, but I have to leave now unfortunately.