• ms.lane@lemmy.worldEnglish
    92·
    2 days 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!

  • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    71·
    2 days 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”

    • ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip
      1·
      7 hours ago

      Considering most people only know procedural programming and are calling it functional/objective…

    • favoredponcho@lemmy.zip
      29·
      2 days 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.

    • The Cuuuuube@beehaw.orgEnglish
      26·
      2 days 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?

    • presoak@lazysoci.al
      1·
      7 hours ago

      I skimmed that.

      So you’ve got a bunch of message transceivers (aka objects). And the magic is in the message soup.

      Yes?

      • ZombieChicken@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        7 hours ago

        From my understanding, yes. Personally, I’ve seen so many different definitions of “OOP” (most of which were incoherent), I developed my own definition of what an ‘object’ is, and just go on with life.

    • entwine@programming.dev
      7·
      2 days 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)

      • bestboyfriendintheworld@sh.itjust.works
        3·
        10 hours ago

        I’m still mad at Apple for making Swift instead of Objective-C 3.0. It was such a powerful and small language.

        C++ has a billion features and Swift is getting more every year.

        Objective-C was fast to compile, great in a debugger, and allowed lots of creativity and patching broken system components.

        Lots of great software was written with it. CocoaBindings are magical.

        • entwine@programming.dev
          5·
          1 day 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)