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"
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"."
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)
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)
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.
28 Comments
ms_lane@lemmy.world · 99 pts · 210d
It's just like Lenin wanted!
Juice@midwest.social · 31 pts · 210d
The Comintern has reviewed this comment and found it quite funny
jjjalljs@ttrpg.network · 75 pts · 210d
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 · 32 pts · 210d
marcos@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 210d
What is not clear is if the software development division updated their practices.
MirrorGiraffe@piefed.social · 5 pts · 209d
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.
bestboyfriendintheworld@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 208d
There’s a lot of legacy stuff around. I saw some CORBA in the wild recently.
irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 206d
ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 208d
Considering most people only know procedural programming and are calling it functional/objective...
red_tomato@lemmy.world · 47 pts · 210d
Seize the means of prod!
xep@discuss.online · 21 pts · 210d
Or just prod! Seize prod
squaresinger@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 209d
Deploy broken code straight to prod?
cows_are_underrated@feddit.org · 14 pts · 209d
Testing is for those who are not confident in their programming skills.
Zos_Kia@jlai.lu · 5 pts · 208d
a14o@feddit.org · 31 pts · 210d
Object.property = theft;
entwine@programming.dev · 12 pts · 210d
sieze(worker, ObjectFactory.meansOfProduction);
ZomieChicken@sh.itjust.works · 28 pts · 210d
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 · 8 pts · 210d
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 · 4 pts · 208d
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.
plyth@feddit.org · 4 pts · 209d
Why is it the way it is?
entwine@programming.dev · 6 pts · 209d
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)
presoak@lazysoci.al · 2 pts · 208d
I skimmed that.
So you've got a bunch of message transceivers (aka objects). And the magic is in the message soup.
Yes?
ZomieChicken@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 208d
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.
Lili_Thana@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 11 pts · 209d
Fuck OOP all my homies use DOD.
pipe01@programming.dev · 12 pts · 209d
Department of defense?
SexualPolytope@lemmy.sdf.org · 9 pts · 209d
It's DoW now, baby. And apparently, it's over 50,000!
Lili_Thana@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 209d
Data Oriented Design
Bazell@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 209d
And then the code has removed your whole database.
Juice@midwest.social · 3 pts · 210d
This but unironically
rain_worl@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 198d
in scheme, everything* is first class!
*i haven't checked