this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
51 points (85.9% liked)

Programming

17666 readers
341 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] arendjr 17 points 2 months ago (3 children)

If we’re looking at it from a Rust angle anyway, I think there’s a second reason that OOP often becomes messy, but less so in Rust: Unlimited interior mutability. Rust’s borrow checker may be annoying at times, but it forces you to think about ownership and prevents you from stuffing statefulness where it shouldn’t be.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago (2 children)

To be fair, that's an issue in almost every imperative language and even some functional languages. Rust, C, and C++ are the only imperative languages I know of that make a serious effort to restrict mutability.

[–] nous 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

How do C and C++ try to restrict mutability?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

const

They don't do it well, but an attempt was made.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

I also love this. I don't why but gc languages feel so incomplete to me. I like to know where the data is that I have. In c/c++ I know if I am passing data or pointer, in rust I know if it's a reference or the data itself. Idk, allows me to think better

[–] MajorHavoc 4 points 2 months ago

Rust’s borrow checker may be annoying at times, but it forces you to think about ownership and prevents you from stuffing statefulness where it shouldn’t be.

That does sound pretty cool.

[–] JackbyDev 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Is there any reason an OO language couldn't have a borrow checker? Sure, it would be wildly more complex to implement but I don't see how it's impossible.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

OO languages typically use garbage collector. The main purpose of the borrow checker is to resolve the ambiguity of who is responsible for deallocating the data.

In GC languages, there’s usually no such ambiguity. The GC takes care of it.

[–] JackbyDev 3 points 2 months ago
[–] nous 1 points 2 months ago

I would argue that rust has a very strong OO feature set (it just lacks inheritance which is the worst OO feature IMO). It is not seen as an OOP language as it also has a very strong functional and procedural feature set as well and does not favor one over the other letting you code in any style that best fits the problem you have.

So I would not say OO and a borrow checker are impossible or even hard. What makes less sense is a GC and the borrow checker. Though there are some use cases for having a GC for a subset of a program.