The OOP Delusion: Why Object-Oriented Programming is Making Your Code Worse

Look, I get it. Your CS professor told you that Object-Oriented Programming is the holy grail of software development. That it would bring structure, reusability, and enlightenment to your code. That one day, you too could ascend to the heights of enterprise architecture by creating perfectly abstracted class hierarchies that would make Gang of Four proud.

But let's be honest: OOP, as commonly taught and practiced, is often more of a hindrance than a help. Let me explain why.

The Classic Shape Example (Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Hate Inheritance)

We've all seen this example in every OOP tutorial ever:

abstract class Shape {
    abstract double area();
    abstract double perimeter();
}

class Circle extends Shape {
    private double radius;
    
    public Circle(double radius) {
        this.radius = radius;
    }
    
    @Override
    double area() {
        return Math.PI * radius * radius;
    }
    
    @Override
    double perimeter() {
        return 2 * Math.PI * radius;
    }
}

class Rectangle extends Shape {
    private double width;
    private double height;
    
    public Rectangle(double width, double height) {
        this.width = width;
        this.height = height;
    }
    
    @Override
    double area() {
        return width * height;
    }
    
    @Override
    double perimeter() {
        return 2 * (width + height);
    }
}

"Isn't it beautiful?" they say. "Look how we've abstracted the concept of a shape! We can add new shapes without changing existing code!"

But let's be real - when have you ever actually needed to structure your code like this? The examples they use in OOP tutorials are always these artificial constructs that have nothing to do with real programs. It's always shapes, or animals that make sounds, or the classic "vehicle hierarchy" with cars and motorcycles.

In the real world, you're usually dealing with things like processing payments, managing user sessions, transforming data, or handling API requests. When was the last time you actually needed a deep inheritance hierarchy for any of that? These textbook examples teach us to create these elaborate structures of classes and interfaces that rarely match how we actually need to organize our code.

The inheritance hierarchy becomes a straightjacket of our own making. We end up forcing everything to fit this rigid pattern just because "that's how OOP is supposed to work", even when it makes the code more complex and harder to change.

A Better Way: Composition and Traits

Let's look at how Rust handles this kind of problem using traits:

trait HasArea {
    fn area(&self) -> f64;
}

trait HasPerimeter {
    fn perimeter(&self) -> f64;
}

struct Circle {
    radius: f64,
}

impl HasArea for Circle {
    fn area(&self) -> f64 {
        std::f64::consts::PI * self.radius * self.radius
    }
}

impl HasPerimeter for Circle {
    fn perimeter(&self) -> f64 {
        2.0 * std::f64::consts::PI * self.radius
    }
}

// We can implement just HasArea for shapes that don't need perimeter
struct Triangle {
    base: f64,
    height: f64,
}

impl HasArea for Triangle {
    fn area(&self) -> f64 {
        0.5 * self.base * self.height
    }
}

The difference is clear. With traits, we can pick and choose which capabilities our types need. There's no rigid hierarchy forcing relationships between types. The code explicitly states what each type can do, and we can add new behaviors without touching existing code.

The Real Problems with OOP

Ever tried to debug a Spring application? You'll find yourself diving through layers upon layers of abstractions, factories, proxies, and more. What started as a simple method call has become an archaeological expedition through your dependency injection container. A single method call might go through application contexts, bean factories, AOP proxies, transaction interceptors, and security interceptors before finally reaching your actual code.

And don't get me started on C#. They looked at Java and somehow thought "you know what this needs? Even more design patterns!" Now you can't write a single line of code without wrapping it in six different abstractions, three interfaces, and a service locator. Want to read a file? Better create an IFileSystemProvider, register it in your dependency injection container, wrap it in an IFileSystemService, and don't forget your IFileSystemStrategyFactory! Because apparently, SOLID principles mean turning every noun in your codebase into an interface.

OOP also encourages you to combine state and behavior in objects. This seems nice until you realize that understanding and managing state becomes exponentially harder as your application grows. Every object becomes a tiny state machine, and debugging becomes a game of "guess which object mutated the state in what order."

Inheritance itself is a trap. It seems like a great way to reuse code until you realize it's actually one of the strongest forms of coupling you can create. Change something in the parent class? Prepare for unexpected breaks in child classes. This is why people say to favor composition over inheritance - but then why are we using a paradigm that puts inheritance at its core?

A Different Approach

We can write clearer code by keeping things simple. Instead of inheritance, use composition. Instead of complex class hierarchies, use simple functions that transform data. Here's an example in TypeScript:

// Instead of inheritance:
class Animal {
    makeSound(): void {
        console.log("Some sound");
    }
}

class Dog extends Animal {
    makeSound(): void {
        console.log("Woof!");
    }
}

// Use composition:
type SoundMaker = {
    makeSound(): void;
}

const dogSound: SoundMaker = {
    makeSound() { console.log("Woof!") }
};

const catSound: SoundMaker = {
    makeSound() { console.log("Meow!") }
};

Similarly, instead of cramming everything into objects, we can separate data from behavior:

// Instead of this:
class User {
    private name: string;
    private email: string;
    
    validateEmail(): boolean {
        return this.email.includes('@');
    }
    
    sendWelcomeEmail(): void {
        // Email sending logic here
    }
}

// Do this:
type User = {
    name: string;
    email: string;
}

function validateEmail(email: string): boolean {
    return email.includes('@');
}

function sendWelcomeEmail(user: User): void {
    // Email sending logic here
}

Conclusion

OOP isn't entirely useless, and there are cases where it makes sense. But it shouldn't be the default way we think about writing software. The real world isn't a neat hierarchy of objects, and trying to force it into one often creates more problems than it solves.

Next time you're about to create a class hierarchy, ask yourself if you're solving a real problem or just making things more complicated than they need to be. Sometimes the best solution is just a simple function that takes some data and returns some other data.

Remember: code doesn't need to be clever or complex to be good. Often the simplest solution is the best one, even if it wouldn't impress your CS professor.

P.S. If your immediate reaction is to defend OOP, ask yourself: Is it really the best solution, or have you just gotten used to it after years of enterprise Java development?