8,245 karma · joined March 28, 2012
Cars are more numerous and could spontaneously either plow into pedestrians, or rear-end someone, causing chain damage and, quite often, a spillage of toxic chemicals (e.g., a cistern carrying acid/fuel/pesticide).
Plus, you have a problem of hostile actors having easier access to cars compared to planes.
Expressivity. As the video I linked before shows, there is a quantifiable and objective difference between a language that has exceptions and one that doesn't. Or lambda's or async.
What terms like "message passing" and "inheritance-based" capture is unique ability of each language to do something novel* other languages can't. Rust as of now lacks such capabilities, although it can probably simulate them to some extent.
*For message passing, it's the method record and replayer. For inheritance-based it can be something like easy DOM manipulation.
Great. Once your boss notices your actual work has decreased, he'll adjust compensation, increase workload, or both.
Luckily if you want stability or quality they are nowhere to be found.
Sure, for some definition of red, green is red. E.g., colorblind people. I'm interested in more broadly accepted jargon.
The problem is, Rust isn't really object-oriented either. I'm interested in a mostly consistent and hopefully majority definition.
It's not message-passing sense (can't do cool fancy things* a la Ruby or Smalltalk); nor is it inheritance-based (can't do inheritance-based nor prototype-based OOP patterns).
There is one more mathematical definition of whether two features are equal, but it involves languages, local macros, and Turing machines. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43XaZEn2aLc
* There was some kind of message recorder and playback in Ruby/Smalltalk, that I can't find. Basically send methods to objects and record them, then playback them at later date. Will update if I find it.
Sigh. Look at what started this whole discussion.
> pjmlp: Plenty of OOP architectures can be implemented 1:1 in Rust type system.
I'm fine with object-oriented meaning message passing.
I'm fine with object-oriented being used to describe inheritance based langs Java/C#/C++.
But where that fails miserably is when you try implementing inheritance based stuff like DOM in Rust.
You can't have your cake (all capabilities of OOP) and also eat it too (also most of them missing).
Rust was never about inheritance hierarchies or message passing.
It's just structs with privacy modifiers. And functions that are applied to them.
Sure but your definition doesn't cover it. If language for which the term was coined, it's a bit meaningless, ain't it.
Problem with making encapsulation and polymorphism essential to OOP definition, is that it then starts garbling up functional languages like Haskell and imperative like C.
I can see them being necessary but not enough to classify something as OOP.
> And when you look you'll soon find out that there is no commonality here.
Perhaps, but broadly speaking people agree that C++ and Java are OOP, but for example C isn't.
Same way when people say and give me a fruit (as in fruits and vegetables), you'd be looked oddly if you gave a cucumber, rather than an apple.
Same way can be thought of OOP. The common definition is basically covers Message-passing-languages, and inheritance/prototype based languages.
You omitted Smalltalk. Most people would agree that SmallTalk is object-oriented.
But that kinda ruins the common ground thesis.
> Language evolves, certainly. It is fine for "object-oriented" to mean something else today.
pjmlp definition is very fuzzy. It judges object-orientedness based on a few criteria, like inheritance, encapsulation, polymorphism, etc. More checks, stronger OOP.
By that, even Haskell is somewhat OOP, and so is C, assembly, Rust, and any language.
---
What I prefer is looking at it as it's used. And how it's used for appears to be akin to using it as an everyday term fish or fruit.
No one would agree that a cucumber is a fruit. Or that humans are fish. Even though botanically and genetically they are.
A much saner definition is looking at how languages evolved and how term is used. The way it's used is to describe an inheritance based language. Basically C++ and the descendants.
Plenty of OOP architecture can be implemented in C. That's an extremely flawed and fuzzy definition. But we've been through this before.
Zig goes for simplicity while removing a few footguns. It's more oriented towards programmer enjoyment. Keep in mind that programmers don't distinguish ease of writing code from ease of writing unforeseen errors.
To paraphrase former Scala developer and present poker player, "If Java cut its nose, would you Scala... Oh god, stop! The blood, the blood!"
Everyone who wants to talk to low-level code has to have C ABI. The equivalent Scalaism in Rust would be if Rust reimplemented the C-inspired java.util.Date. Yes. Monday should be 0, not an enum. Because C did it.
If for anything, Rust isn't married to C as Scala is to Java.
Maybe but:
- Move fixes Pin
- Linear types, prevent memory leaks
- potentially effects simplify so many things
Each of these functionalities unlock capabilities people have complained about Rust. Namely async, gen blocks, memory leaks.
It's not just the difficulty. It's the lack of learning materials, widgets, examples, and whatnot. Debuggers also suck, at least they did when I used Delphi.
What also helps is having a huge behemoth of a corporation improving your GUI toolkit for free (Chromium, although you pay in ad exposure).
I've been in a few companies that managed to eke out a living by maintaining a piece of software no one in their sane mind would still maintain. Sometimes a government gig, sometimes the private sector.
Shoutout to my boys that in 2018 maintained a Java 1.3 app. Still going strong to this day (it was migrated to Java 8 last time I checked).
EDIT: ~21 Delphi apps in world! Woohoo! Delphi number #525
Electron is bad, but it's the least bad of all other cross-platform GUIs.
> Most of those Electron folks would not manage to even write C applications on an Amiga, use Delphi, VB, or whatever.
That's true of most people on the planet. No one has access to them.
Ok, but why was everyone tired of Angular? Sure, web frameworks are examples of Fad Driven Development to the extreme, but Angular.js, was pure unmitigated ARSE.
Made ten bindings on a page? That's 100 cross connections. Made 100 two-way bindings? that's 10000 connections.
Clicked one way through fields A, B then started typing, they show same data. Clicked through fields A and C, now they are bound but B isn't. Clicked B then C, congrats all three of your bindings suddenly start filling in.
It was a combination of shitty performance scaling and unintuitive Angular data flow that primed everyone for React to take over.
And they were created to minimize writing down what auto traits your types implemented. You can filter by them, but they are assumed automatic bounds.
And interestingly enough Zig doesn't have this property either it leaks constness, alignment and similar info.
First, it's very fuzzy. You don't have to have all aspects, but many aspects are present in many systems without it being outright fascist.
---
Is 5 out of 14 enough to make something fascist? Are "Appeal to a frustrated middle class", "Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as 'at the same time too strong and too weak'", "Newspeak" and "Obsession with a plot" enough?
I think it confuses rhetorical devices like "Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as 'at the same time too strong and too weak'" and "Newspeak" as hallmarks of Fascism when they are just a tool.
George Orwell famously pointed that calling things "fascist" and "Nazi" is in itself an example of Newspeak, because it's not used to describe a government system that is far-right, authoritarian, and extremely xenophobic, but it's used as a label to say something is Bad™.
It also confuses its populist roots and enemies at the time. "The cult of action for action's sake," and especially anti-intellectualism.
---
Like take Starship Troopers, an extremely fascistic society. Let's score it on Eco's scale. It definitely has "Rejection of Modernism", "Disagreement is treason", "Cult of action", "Fear of Difference", "Life is Warfare", "Everybody is a hero", and "Newspeak". So 7/14.
- Cult of tradition doesn't exist that much per se. Granted, I could have missed it.
- Appeal to the frustrated middle class; as far as we see, there isn't one .
- Obsession with plot isn't really a thing, because the Bugs aren't really a plot; they are a clear and present danger. The internal enemies if any aren't mentioned.
- Casting enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak." Bugs are shown more or less realistically, they are a difficult enemy that can be defeated.
- "Selective populism". It's not so much selective populism as state enforced labor to gain citizenship.
- "Contempt for the weak" there isn't much out-group to belong to. The Terran Federation covers the globe, and almost everyone is a citizen. There isn't any contempt for underlings, even if there are military cross branch out-groups. Like real world counterparts jarheads, squids and wingnut.
- If Machismo exists, it's mutated to cover both sexes.
Granted, I might have missed a few, but still, shouldn't Eco's 14 traits light up more for a more fascistic society?
You can still speak against him, as far as I can tell. Compare this to, say, Mao Zedong. If you spoke against him, your life was forfeit, and even that's not fascism.
If this is one of those fuzzy definitions, it definitely isn't on the strong side. Where is the rampant militarism, the worship of death, and of the military?