The parent post was edited, wasn’t it? I replied something to it, but the mentions of OOP have been removed. Am I goig crazy? 🤪
Comment on Maestro, a Linux compatible kernel written in Rust.
dewritoninja@pawb.social 8 months agoImo rust won’t replace cpp without true Oop so I might just make my own objective rust and piss off Oop haters
FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 8 months ago
That’s why you always quote what you’re replying to.
magic_lobster_party@kbin.social 8 months ago
And I’m confused why I got two comments going into the OOP tangent, when I made no mention about it at all.
FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
Apologies!
magic_lobster_party@kbin.social 8 months ago
No worries! I love conversations bashing on 00s-style OOP principles.
callyral@pawb.social 8 months ago
What is true OOP?
barsoap@lemm.ee 8 months ago
There has been no true OOP language since smalltalk, which btw wasn’t class-based.
In practical terms Rust has subtyping – barely, at least in technical terms the only thing that uses true subtyping is lifetimes. In practical terms you have qualified types (aka traits) supporting interface inheritance which is perfectly proper as everybody knows that you shouldn’t inherit implementation as the Liskov Substitution Principle is undecidable.
“Language X will fail because it’s not OO” what’s this, the early 00s? I thought we left that hype train behind.