576

OOP is a construct of oppression installed by the burgoise (feddit.org)

submitted 23 hours ago by cows_are_underrated@feddit.org to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev

23 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 23 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] a14o@feddit.org 26 points 19 hours ago

Object.property = theft;

[-] entwine@programming.dev 11 points 18 hours ago

sieze(worker, ObjectFactory.meansOfProduction);

[-] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 59 points 22 hours ago

Sometimes I still see job postings that are like "MUST KNOW OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING" and I'm wondering who in 2026 isn't at least passably familiar with it.

But then again I also see job posts that are like "must know Java or JavaScript"

[-] favoredponcho@lemmy.zip 22 points 21 hours ago

A lot of those posts will also include shit like must know XML and AJAX and it’s clear the recruitment division hadn’t updated their template in ages.

[-] marcos@lemmy.world 19 points 19 hours ago

What is not clear is if the software development division updated their practices.

[-] MirrorGiraffe@piefed.social 3 points 16 hours ago

Exactly, if there's even the slightest risk that I'll need to dust off the good ol ajax that's a nope from me.

[-] Cube6392@beehaw.org 22 points 22 hours ago

in 2026 you really have to ask an employer what they mean by object oriented programming in the interview. do they mean a methodology of organizing pure functional code into actors and message busses? do they mean imperitive code that's interacted with through generic interfaces as with python? or do they mean javascipt style OOP where you define classes to organize your imperitive code within a functional language without any concern for the generic interfaces this could hypothetically enable?

[-] ms_lane@lemmy.world 71 points 23 hours ago

replaces Classes with Functions

code is still parsed from the top down and some functions are more privileged than others

It's just like Lenin wanted!

[-] Juice@midwest.social 20 points 21 hours ago

The Comintern has reviewed this comment and found it quite funny

[-] red_tomato@lemmy.world 36 points 22 hours ago

Seize the means of prod!

[-] xep@discuss.online 16 points 20 hours ago

Or just prod! Seize prod

[-] squaresinger@lemmy.world 8 points 17 hours ago

Deploy broken code straight to prod?

[-] cows_are_underrated@feddit.org 7 points 16 hours ago

Testing is for those who are not confident in their programming skills.

[-] ZomieChicken@sh.itjust.works 20 points 20 hours ago

Or do as Alan Kay wants and start calling it "Message-Oriented Programming".

"I'm sorry that I long ago coined the term "objects" for this topic because it gets many people to focus on the lesser idea. The big idea is "messaging"."

https://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/1998-October/017019.html

[-] entwine@programming.dev 6 points 18 hours ago

I still get sad when I think about Objective C and how it didn't take off vs C++ just because it had ugly syntax (which becomes beautiful once you understand why it is the way it is)

[-] plyth@feddit.org 2 points 15 hours ago

Why is it the way it is?

[-] entwine@programming.dev 4 points 14 hours ago

Both C++ and Objective-C aimed to be "C with classes". C++ does it by hijacking existing syntax (struct), Objective-C does it by adding new syntax, while leaving the original minimalism of C untouched.

In fact, it's a strict superset of C, which means it doesn't change anything at all in C, it only appends. So every valid C program is a valid Objective C program (which is not true for C++).

You know how some C programs are valid C++ programs though? Well, those same programs can use Objective C features too, meaning you're able to use them in C++... Meaning you're able to code in "Objective C++" (which is very common for interop purposes)