this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
47 points (85.1% liked)

Programming

17188 readers
471 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]



founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] nous 23 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I think a lot of people conflate OOP and inheritance to mean the same thing. And inheritance is what should get the bad rap. It does not solve any problem I have seen any better than other language features (in particular interfaces/traits can solve a lot of the same problems) but inheritance causes far more problems overall.

But building the code out of logical units with fenced responisbilities is in my opinion a good way to structure code.

This is encapsulation, which is one of the better ideas from OOP languages. Though also not unique to them.

And I have a hard time to wrap my mind around some design choices in the language that would have been very easily solved with a more OOP like structure.

What design choices would those be? And how would they better fit into an OOP like structure? Note that rust is not anti OOP - it uses OOP techniques a lot throughout the code base. It just lack inheritance and replaces that with other IMO better features.

[โ€“] 0x0 4 points 6 days ago

This is encapsulation, which is one of the better ideas from OOP languages. Though also not unique to them.

Interfaces, APIs, mincroservices, the unix philosophy...