OOP is dead
-
@Kamil-Podlesak if methods don't belong to an object, you lose the most important property of OOP - strongly coupling data with behavior.
That said, I'm all for decoupling data from behavior in most cases.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in OOP is dead:
The proper solution is to abandon the octopus-dog and get a language that was actually designed.
On that page, is a link. It leads to a page whining about C++. And on that page...
*Oh, definitely. C++ may not be the worst programming language ever created, but without a doubt it’s the worst ever to be taken seriously. – Mason Wheeler
-
@PotatoEngineer yeah, it's a great appeal to authority to indirectly quote yourself as a leading expert on why C++ sucks, ignoring that you don't even know basic features of C++11.
-
I'd really like to live in the same world as the author(s) of cat-v.
From what they write, it seems like they have not spent even a day developing commercial software and thus can still find programming fun, rewarding, and addictive.
But then you read something like this...
Children are nothing more than a toy some parents use to feed their ego and feel important. They are a nuisance and make life miserable for everyone else around.
Alternatives to children : video games, programming...and you know that these are the kinds of people you wouldn't like to be friends with. I say that as a person who is both childless and childsceptical.
-
@strangeways This may enter garage territory (but threads are difficult
), but might I ask - what specifically you disagreeable so much that you declare that? I find it might be the presented alternatives. Otherwise 
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in OOP is dead:
@strangeways This may enter garage territory (but threads are difficult
), but might I ask - what specifically you disagreeable so much that you declare that? I find it might be the presented alternatives. Otherwise Said humorously? I fully agree. There’s nothing more annoying than being in a crowded place (plane? supermarket is bad enough) with crying or misbehaving children. And the “programming” alternative is a good self-deprecating joke.
But it almost reads like he’s fully serious. It’s hard to tell. If he is, it’s pretty moronic to be honest.
-
@topspin I don't know if he is. I know I am1.
It's not about children. Children will cry and misbehave, because that's what they do. Whether they haven't been taught better or just don't understand, they have their reasons. It's unfortunate, but to a certain flash point it can't be helped.
What I see is that children are unfortunate participants of the social status charade.
People rushing into having relationships, families and children (in no specific order) before self-sustenance, stability, maturity. Yes, we discussed that in one of threads @levicki took with him, and most of you said that nobody is ever ready, so we'd all die off in a couple generations. I found that answer wanting.
And sometimes also political charade. "Won't somebody think of the children". Look, they quote of one the most unhinged psychopaths in the human history who nevertheless recognized it's one of the strongest human emotions to prey upon, to blindside. How people will do anything for their children. Wrong things, terrible things.
I have felt the pressure from family, relatives. I've been asking why is that necessary. I've gotten only "reee", attempts to deflect, avoid, even take offense, because there is no answer to something that isn't expected to be questioned.
And please don't mistake me for someone woke, looking to destroy the concept of healthy families, usually with some subversion and misdirection. In fact it's one of the key reasons I'm not pushing my opinion much - I don't want that to happen.
What I would like is to for people to recognize that children are not why they're on this world. And that the infinite quest for better future frequently destroys our present. I have considered the idea that race to the future is we get anything done at all. But I've found the answer wanting...
1 And if that happens to be pretty moronic, I find that a common sentiment. I'm used to it and take zero offense. Except that garage is arrows, of course.
-
@strangeways said in OOP is dead:
But then you read something like this...
Children are nothing more than a toy some parents use to feed their ego and feel important. They are a nuisance and make life miserable for everyone else around.
Alternatives to children : video games, programming...and you know that these are the kinds of people you wouldn't like to be friends with.
I always read that as an attempt at humour.
-
@strangeways said in OOP is dead:
From what they write, it seems like they have not spent even a day developing commercial software and thus can still find programming fun, rewarding, and addictive.
5 years under the belt and I still find programming fun. Sometimes. Very rarely. Almost never, in fact. But there are days when I feel like coding something up, and I stay up all night and half the morning just because the problem I'm solving is so interesting. So far I had it happen twice this year, and twice last year.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in OOP is dead:
And sometimes also political charade. "Won't somebody think of the children". Look, they quote of one the most unhinged psychopaths in the human history who nevertheless recognized it's one of the strongest human emotions to prey upon, to blindside.
Huh, didn't know it's a quote from an unhinged psychopath. But who exactly? Let's check Wikipedia...
U.S. President Bill Clinton used the phrase in a 1999 speech to the International Labour Organization,[23]
-
@Gąska said in OOP is dead:
5 years under the belt and I still find programming fun. Sometimes. Very rarely. Almost never,
Nearly 50 years (48 is pretty close) and still fun every day.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in OOP is dead:
What I would like is to for people to recognize that children are not why they're on this world.
From a biological/evolutionary perspective, that's exactly why any living organism is on this world.
-
@Gąska said in OOP is dead:
Huh, didn't know it's a quote from an unhinged psychopath. But who exactly? Let's check Wikipedia...
Let's. While I was unclear to state what exactly they - cat-v - quoted in TFA - and namely, they quoted Mein Kampf - it is what I wanted you to arrive at - that children are used by adults as a political tool to influence other adults, who fall easily for that due to the harmful emotional precondition.
@HardwareGeek said in OOP is dead:
@Applied-Mediocrity said in OOP is dead:
What I would like is to for people to recognize that children are not why they're on this world.
From a biological/evolutionary perspective, that's exactly why any living organism is on this world.
And yet, is that the only perspective? If not, is that the most important perspective?
-
@TheCPUWizard said in OOP is dead:
@Gąska said in OOP is dead:
5 years under the belt and I still find programming fun. Sometimes. Very rarely. Almost never,
Nearly 50 years (48 is pretty close) and still fun every day.
I'd find programming 50 years ago much more fun too!
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in OOP is dead:
@Gąska said in OOP is dead:
Huh, didn't know it's a quote from an unhinged psychopath. But who exactly? Let's check Wikipedia...
Let's.
Oh come on, it was just a joke about Clinton!
@HardwareGeek said in OOP is dead:
@Applied-Mediocrity said in OOP is dead:
What I would like is to for people to recognize that children are not why they're on this world.
From a biological/evolutionary perspective, that's exactly why any living organism is on this world.
And yet, is that the only perspective?
According to many evolutionary psychologists, yes. Or at least the vastly dominant one.
-
@Gąska said in OOP is dead:
Oh come on, it was just a joke about Clinton!
I see. It had slipped past me.
According to many evolutionary psychologists, yes. Or at least the vastly dominant one.
I gravitate towards the notion of being the most dominant one. And I would like that balance shifted. Unfortunately it is not the first time I find that my line of thought is incompatible even with childskeptics, often rejected as a general notion once I state that I stand (and, to a certain extent, live) by my words.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity it's one thing to argue with people who have different views. It's another to argue with humans' basic nature shaped by millions of years of evolution.
-
@Gąska True. It is difficult to change anyone's simplest convictions these days. I certainly won't be going against the imprint of the nature itself. I do, if foolishly, keep hoping that as society changes more people will eventually reach similar conclusions. These days more destructive tendencies seem to have taken hold instead, what with all the -isms going on... well,
is all I will do.
-
@topspin said in OOP is dead:
Said humorously? I fully agree. There’s nothing more annoying than being in a crowded place (plane? supermarket is bad enough) with crying or misbehaving children
Heh...having had to deal with those misbehaving kids because they were mine...that very rarely bothers me any more.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in OOP is dead:
People rushing into having relationships, families and children (in no specific order) before self-sustenance, stability, maturity. Yes, we discussed that in one of threads @levicki took with him, and most of you said that nobody is ever ready, so we'd all die off in a couple generations. I found that answer wanting.
We weren't meant to be all those things before we had kids. There's an argument to be made that you'll never be those things without already having kids (slight hyperbole, but not too far of IMO). And few things will give you the drive to get at least the self-sustenance part besides having kids to look after.
What I would like is to for people to recognize that children are not why they're on this world.
I find that interesting because I wish people would realize children are the whole point of it all.
-
@boomzilla said in OOP is dead:
I find that interesting because I wish people would realize children are the whole point of it all.
Way I see it, the best years of one's life is in range of 20-30. Mature enough to make informed decisions (let's leave aside for the moment that people generally don't), young enough to have good health and spirit, open to experiences and taking different paths as the world terns.
Children immediately take it away. Not entirely, of course, but you are not just you anymore. You can leave your job for another, you can leave relationship, you can leave your home, you can leave your entire life behind. You can't leave your children (in the sense that you can, but it's illegal and immoral for reasons I will absolutely stand for).
Now, far be it from me to impose what other people should do with their lives. If it brings them happiness and fulfillment. If only it were so. But why do I do see also regret and misery, remedied by alcohol, medications, escapism... well, any vices that generally people use to delay owning up to the crap happening to them? At very best it's both happiness and regret. And because the regret part is generally a choice... well, it seems to me that maybe there are things that can be done about that.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in OOP is dead:
Now, far be it from me to impose what other people should do with their lives.
I don't disagree. It just makes me a little bit sad when I see people who don't have kids. And having them when you're young is good because you have the energy for them.
Oh, well. To paraphrase @flabdablet trying to quote me, "I've got mine."
-
@boomzilla said in OOP is dead:
And having them when you're young is good because you have the energy for them.
This. I didn't have kids until my mid- to late-30s. I definitely didn't have as much energy as I had 5–10 years earlier. And my dad didn't have a kid until he was in his mid-40s; looking back, I can see things I missed out on because of his age.
-
@HardwareGeek said in OOP is dead:
@Applied-Mediocrity said in OOP is dead:
What I would like is to for people to recognize that children are not why they're on this world.
From a biological/evolutionary perspective, that's exactly why any living organism is on this world.
No, continued existence is why every population of organisms is on this world. That continued existence of course depends on individual reproduction, but (depending on the species and its survival strategies) not every individual needs to participate in the act. Some species have found cooperation and specialization to be successful strategies for the population's survival - not every member of the species does everything. The species continues because each community's needs, including reproduction, are met, but different individuals contribute in different ways to meeting those needs.
-
@HardwareGeek said in OOP is dead:
@Applied-Mediocrity said in OOP is dead:
What I would like is to for people to recognize that children are not why they're on this world.
From a biological/evolutionary perspective, that's exactly why any living organism is on this world.
Interestingly enough, that's the same answer that a faith-based perspective gives. The very first commandment given to Adam and Eve, which has never been rescinded, was to "be fruitful and multiply, and fill the Earth."
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in OOP is dead:
@Gąska said in OOP is dead:
Huh, didn't know it's a quote from an unhinged psychopath. But who exactly? Let's check Wikipedia...
Let's. While I was unclear to state what exactly they - cat-v - quoted in TFA - and namely, they quoted Mein Kampf - it is what I wanted you to arrive at - that children are used by adults as a political tool to influence other adults, who fall easily for that due to the harmful emotional precondition.
And what exactly is wrong with quoting that with proper attribution?
The problem with saying that something like Mein Kampf is unworthy of reading is that if you don't know what's in it, you won't recognize it when you see it elsewhere. (Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.)
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in OOP is dead:
And what exactly is wrong with quoting that with proper attribution?
None at all. Does it come off that I believed there is?
-
@Applied-Mediocrity Yes, it kind of did.
-
@Mason_Wheeler Alright. Given that I'm agreeing with their position, I thought it didn't. Rather, being already seen as a child hating prick, I wanted to ensure that I'm not also seen as a full-blown SS-Kinderhassenführer.
Oh fuck that. I'm not used to this arguing thing. Plus, I had one of those alternatives running in background.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in OOP is dead:
a full-blown SS-Kinderhassenführer.
Get with the times. They're now called Jugendamt
