I just started reading the book, and I found a slight inaccuracy I figured I'd point out:
On 3.9.1 - page 30, paragraph 2 (physical book), you discuss why object- oriented programing is still useful. Your main argument is that many people use OOP, and it's responsible for lots of "successful code", so therefore it must not be "that wrong".
However, I believe this is a flimsy and false argument. Just because a lot of people use something does not mean that it's good.
I'd suggest checking that part out and possibly making some changes, but it's your book! Plus, I'm nowhere near being an expert on programming, language design, or argumentitive writing. I just want to help.
I'm OK with leaving this claim in. If millions of people successfully use a thing, it may not be good, but I think the burden of proof lies with anyone claiming that it's bad.
I just started reading the book, and I found a slight inaccuracy I figured I'd point out: On
3.9.1
-page 30, paragraph 2
(physical book), you discuss why object- oriented programing is still useful. Your main argument is that many people use OOP, and it's responsible for lots of "successful code", so therefore it must not be "that wrong". However, I believe this is a flimsy and false argument. Just because a lot of people use something does not mean that it's good. I'd suggest checking that part out and possibly making some changes, but it's your book! Plus, I'm nowhere near being an expert on programming, language design, or argumentitive writing. I just want to help.