Two of these have nothing to do with OOP. One has been practically disowned by modern practitioners.

Two of these have nothing to do with OOP. One has been practically disowned by modern practitioners. The remaining and most important one is violated all over the place in every real-world codebase.

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it’s encapsulation right because jeets can’t into ES6 nor how the prototypes
    chain works and it drives me fricking insane

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's not just the jeets, though. Everyone breaks encapsulation. Breaking encapsulation is such a standard practice OOP acolytes no longer even acknowledge it as such. Do you use setters?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They're all OOP, they're just not only OOP.

        >good morning sir
        >everyone does this sir

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Do you have setters in your projects?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >They're all OOP, they're just not only OOP.
          Might as well add "variables" to the list, then. Or "conditional execution". Those things seem pretty important and they're part of OOP (just not only OOP).

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >it’s encapsulation right because jeets can’t into ES6 nor how the prototypes
      Webshit is for people who can't into real programming.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It depends the kind of objects you wanna design? (singleton) service with business logic ? plain data holder ?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >plain data holder ?
      is not even an object, neither by Simula nor Smalltalk standards

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Oojeets don't understand formal methods or math. Anything an oojeet practitioner says can be readily cast out and ignored.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Oojeets don't understand formal methods or math
      They did try to make OOP more formal and academic in the 90s but no one cared.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Two of these have nothing to do with OOP
    In this sentence, OP (homosexual) is referring to Abstraction and Polymorphism
    >One has been practically disowned by modern practitioners
    Here, they refer to Inheritance
    >The remaining and most important one is violated all over the place in every real-world codebase
    finally, the last sentence is about Encapsulation

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Your ability to figure out precisely which one is which demonstrates that I am both straight and correct.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Fair enough. I apologize.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          man pulled the reverse uno

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Your ability to figure out precisely which one is which demonstrates that I am both straight and correct.

      Fair enough. I apologize.

      rare IQfy dubya

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    180 IQ AGI has spoken.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >180 IQ AGI has spoken.
      kek. guess it's official

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm glad to hear people say this. I took a university course and the professor kept going on about how great OOP is but it seems wrong to me. Like how is abstraction an advantage of OOP? Do we not use abstraction all the time? She is Indian btw.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Like how is abstraction an advantage of OOP? Do we not use abstraction all the time?
      They play a stupid double game where they vaguely pretend to have a monopoly on abstractions and polymorphism, but if you press them about it, they'll just backpedal and say it just means they embrace those things as primary guiding principles.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    none of these have anything unique to oop and available to any other paradigm.
    oop simply means that you dogmatically model your codebase around real-world objects, like a clueless morons who doesn't understand how computers work and why is it a bad idea. that's it.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >none of these have anything unique to oop and available to any other paradigm.
      >oop simply means that you dogmatically model your codebase around real-world objects
      You can envision some analogy of inheritance in a non-OOP context, but it's still a product of trying to model things in terms real-world taxonomies. As for encapsulation, it is the soul of an object.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >it's still a product of trying to model things in terms real-world taxonomies
        no its not

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Then show me another paradigm with a concept of inheritance.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In what world is inheritance "disowned"

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >In what world is inheritance "disowned"
      This one, where everyone tells you to avoid it and use interfaces and composition instead, and with good reason.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Is an interface not inheritance

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Is an interface not inheritance
          No. Neither data nor behavior is being inherited.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *