Without using any buzzwords, explain to me why procedural code is better than OOP code

Without using any buzzwords, explain to me why procedural code is better than OOP code.

Attached: 6F0DDA14-3C88-467C-9DDE-34CFFF711554.png (380x606, 56.33K)

buzz

jackie chan

It's better when there are few enough features for my little brain to follow.

Sometimes procedural code is cleaner than OOP code, especially if the code modifies multiple structs.

>get_account is a linear scan through all accounts
haha what the fuck is this pajeet code

Attached: 1579069331096.png (500x500, 304.59K)

Procedural programing is dead simple and barebones, great for when OOP would be overkill or senseless

So, because its too hard? Really? OOP concepts take like 1 hour to learn.

NOOOOOOOOOO YOU MUST USE A DICT BY ID, ARGHHHHHHH THE INNEFICIENCY

Attached: file.png (225x225, 40.54K)

It depends. I like using OOP for many things because I think it makes it easier to test and debug. Example in the pic could be an Account class and each acount an instance of it, with balance as a property and the functions as methods. I think it would make things tidier.

How would you do it?

dubs thread by the way
checked

not because its too hard, because in some context it would just add needless complexity and make code worse.

OOP is just a set of abstractions used in procedural programming.

fizz

Retard.

OOP is a type of procedural code

hashmap or table of some sort probably

No wonder your shitty backend code uses 50% CPU and 5 GB memory even before any clients have connected.

How would you do that if it were getAccountByFullName rather than using an ID like in a hash map?

with a hash function

easier to understand at a glance

This code is like the procedural equivalent of the shitty animal-taxonomy bullshit that OOPlets get taught. Please find a better example.

OOP has a short initial investment, but ultimately a huge cost amortized over time.
This is because OOP programmers are frequently thrashing against the type system and the boundaries of the language they've made for themselves.
Example: Singletons.
To solve issues of global application state, singletons are begrudgingly used and put up with. Programmers dislike how it tightly couples concepts that ought not to be.
So they invent a "decoupled" version of a Singleton, the Event Manager, which handles the getting and setting of Singletons through parsed Event types.

Here, "tightly coupled" actually means a well defined type on the object definition, and "loosely coupled" actually means "lol I basically used a void pointer better figure it out"
So the singleton never went away, it was just cast to an Event handling system.

None of this is a problem in Common Lisp.

Probably because Common Lisp is a functional language you fucking idiot

Common Lisp is procedural, object oriented and functional.