I like the way he broke things up, but something bothers me about his technique.
All his classes ended in "er".
he's not writing object oriented software, he's writing imperative software with objects.
All his classes ended in "er".
he's not writing object oriented software, he's writing imperative software with objects.
If you are not doing what is traditionally taught as OO, and you are doing something better why not say that?
I wonder why you don't say: "OO is an inferior design because it tangles mutable state with behavior"
"Not OO" should not be pejorative. OO is definitely sometimes wrong.