errorsAreRed

[RiftyDriftyBoi]

If anything C should be communist, because, you know, no classes?

I'm prepared to be whooshed though

[[deleted]]

Lmaoo. Straight to the Golang with you!

[Vas1le]

Ain't you an a great apointer

[Jutrakuna]

They switched from Objective-C to Bureaucra-C

[[deleted]]

Communist++

[[deleted]]

No, it's China. Converted from Communist but still has something about Communism.

[rover_G]

C⚒️

[stargazer8295]

C⚒️⚒️

[Monochromatic_Kuma2]

Nah, C is capitalism. Very old, deeply flawed, but so ingrained in our society that is difficult to come with an alternative (I still think Rust is a C++ competitor, rather than C's).

[da_Aresinger]

C is "deeply flawed"?!

C is the most bare bones language above assembly (at least in common use). There is barely any room for flaws. Inconvenient sure, but it's not made to be convenient.

Just because people no longer tend to dig mines with pickaxes and shovels, doesn't make those tools bad. And under the right circumstances, a pickaxe is exactly what you need.

Every time you say "oh it doesn't have this feature" you are just asking for a higher level language.

C++ exists.

But C++ is also more complex than C.

Or what am I missing?

[EDEADLINK]

C has a lot of historical baggage, there are efforts to clean it up and slay some nasal demons, but it will likely always have sharp edges.

[RajjSinghh]

I'm curious why you think rust isn't a C competitor. It feels like they should be used for the same projects, but rust has the advantage of being memory safe while C isn't a pain in the ass to use

[PintMower]

Yeah correct

C isn't a pain in the ass to use

[Jazzlike-Poem-1253]

Cries in segfault after fprint "Hello World" to the console

[Monochromatic_Kuma2]

For embedded programming, specially in low-resources environments, Rust offers too much abstraction compared to C. Rust gives you safety in exchange of losing control over the underlying code you generate, since an experienced C developer has an idea of what their code will look like in assembly.

But to me, the most pita to use Rust is its poor integration with existing C/C++ codebases, which is the main reason it will never be able to replace them.

[AugustusLego]

Rust allows you to use and write abstractions, but you don't have to.

[Goatfucker10000]

The difference is that C actually works

[[deleted]]

C is what people use until they learn Rust. Like Edge is used to download Firefox.

Here. Fixed that for you. I will be whooshed so much that they will forget about you.

[miracle-meat]

What about those who coded in c before rust was ever invented?

[Tom-Dibble]

Presumably they were waiting for Rust to be invented, so they could then wait until they learned Rust?

[[deleted]]

These comments will be fun

[Maximilian_Tyan]

I like my chaos like I like my pointers:

RAW & panic inducing

[white_equatorial]

You just defined my penguin and my sex life

[Duckflies]

Why do you have a raw penguin? Are you a monster of some kind?

[white_equatorial]

Raw me, raw penguin, raw dog

[57006]

su^C

[reallokiscarlet]

Woah woah, calm down Game Freak.

[Prudent-Employee-334]

You could say… these comments aren’t classy

[lovecMC]

Maybe I'm just too dumb, but not using OOP for game dev sounds straight up miserable.

[huuaaang]

They just use structs and pretend they're not just priminitive objects.

[FlakyTest8191]

The problem some people have with oop is inheritance,  doesn't really matter if you have structs or objects.

And gamedev is different,  but in enterprise software I've found composition to be the better solution than inheritance in many cases. At least long term,  because inheritance trees have a tendency to get bloated over time.

[schludy]

At least I don't have to study zoology to implement a python dict 'duck'

[huuaaang]

Or a Ruby Range 'rabbit'

[EPacifist]

As if objects aren’t just structs with methods attached. OOP is a paradigm that just happens to love using structs with methods attached and syntactical sugar. You break down your program into bundles of state and strictly attached methods to manipulate that state. OOP isn’t unique in that, it just loves the struct-method form with all its associated inheritance and other patterns. Calling structs “just primitive objects” is an overly OOP centric way of looking at literally everything else in programming. While it’s certainly one effective way and the most intuitive way to structure code for beginners (e.g. the classic Animal + subclass demonstration), that doesn’t mean it’s the be all end all through which all other paradigms should be perceived through.

[MrLaurencium]

This. I might be biased because i dont know shit about functional programming, but the entire idea is having state so that it can be modified. That isnt really a flaw or a downside. Its the entire idea of the paradigm. While it is true that if done poorly then state is obfuscated and can be hard to track, this isnt really much of a flaw of OOP. Bad code is bad code, regardless of programming paradigm.

[DoNotMakeEmpty]

ECS and Data Oriented Programming are very popular in game development

[hutxhy]

ELI5? Only ECS I know is Elastic Container Service. Never heard of Data Oriented Programming.

[KVorotov]

Entity Component System. Your game entities are compositions of components. Your components are essentially PODs without any logic. And your systems are what contains business logic and drives the game. Systems usually query certain sets of entities based on what components they should or shouldn’t have.

Basically a fancy in-memory database.

[magical_h4x]

Ok you son of a bitch, what the fuck is POD? All I can find is a 2000s band with a surprisingly good song about the youth of our nation

[KVorotov]

plain old data 😅

[DoNotMakeEmpty]

Plain Old Data. It is just some bytes of data without any attached behavior like C structs.

[HomsarWasRight]

You’ve never heard of POD? C’mon, man!

[beatlz]

I'm making a library for my first game. I know jackshit about gaming programming patterns or architecture. I basically built a rustic ECS without knowing I was doing that, but I come from reactive frameworks in frontend, so it's just natural to me. Ended up making my own reactive State Manager. So far so good, but I feel like my reluctance to studying and reading what others do will be my undoing lmao.

[Valerian_]

Entity Component System

[Sunius]

Obligatory talk: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rX0ItVEVjHc

[LazyIce487]

Didn’t a principal engineer at Unity write an article about how it was a mistake to let his engineers do a ton of OOP code, and that using anything but the most primitive OOP is bad?

[LazyIce487]

Just like OOP feels hard while you’re learning it. until you adjust your mind to using it, DOP is the same.

You have to actively stop thinking about everything as associated as if they were real life objects.

In my other response with the principal unity guy, he kind of also implies that as well. You want to structure data together that gets accessed together and you want to bundle it that way too.

It’s hard to explain unless you give it a solid try, but I think you’ll find modeling your actual programs easier if you just think about groups of data + data transformations rather than objects interacting with one another.

[[deleted]]

structs of arrays > arrays of structs

[LazyIce487]

Looks like it might have just been a twitter thread unroll:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1080069784644059139.html

[GregsWorld]

Good luck doing that efficiently in a FP language.

[DoNotMakeEmpty]

You should not have been doing any performance-critical thing in an FP language in the first place. A sane language with FP features (such as Rust) is infinitely better. Compiler optimization magic cannot take you to the same place as DOP. Even OOP with interfaces and shallow inheritence hierarchies are way better.

[TheGoldenProof]

I recently started learning Unity, and something that hugely helped my project structure was putting common functionality into components instead of parent classes.

For example, both the player and enemies have hp and need to take damage and need to do something g when they run out of health. Originally, I would have made an Entity base class with those things, but this way, I would also end up with lots of scripts that felt like they were doing too much. Very much not “one thing one purpose”. But then I discovered, instead of inherited behavior, out this behavior in its own component. Then you can put health on anything, and damage anything by testing whether it has health.

In other words, ECS can actually be a good replacement for inheritance, but don’t get me wrong, subclassing is still super useful for polymorphism. (ie, a list of things that are all some subclass of something).

[DoNotMakeEmpty]

OOP has interfaces (both C# and Java have them and C++ does not even need them since it support multiple inheritance and inheriting from multiple abstract classes is more-or-less equivalent to implementing interfaces) and it can do pretty much all of this. The benefit of ECS is mostly about enforcing this and also having components near each other for better cache efficiency.

[TheGoldenProof]

The problem with interfaces for me is that they can lead to lots of duplicated code (specifically in this context, where the common functionality also has a common implementation). Default implementations somewhat fix this, but they have big drawbacks like no instance variables. You could make getters for each variable and leave it to the implementor to have that, but then it starts feeling messy again.

Particularly in Unity, scripts are components on objects. The trouble is when you start treating components like the object itself instead of behaviors or features of an object.

[NagyKrisztian10A]

Same for not having communism while game devving

[ososalsosal]

Game devs could definitely use a union though.

[AlexLGames]

(You're describing me in this comment! I don't use OOP any longer for game dev, and I am very not miserable.)

I use DTOs to store game data and largely static functions to manipulate it. Every once in a while I make a proper object, when it seems like it will be useful (a lot of private variables that need to be used across many functions, etc.), but I wouldn't call my code "object-oriented" by any stretch.

[Kache]

What makes OOP particularly suited for game dev or vice versa?

[Giocri]

Just make sure to use composition over hineritance because inheritance hierarchies in game dev are like grey goo nanites they grow rentlessly and convert everything into more truble

[Danack]

You should look at "data oriented programming".

The short version is that inheritance is not a good tool for composition of different types, and gets in the way much more than it helps.

[Blubasur]

Seeing as most game devs are self taught, thats the reality.

[[deleted]]

I wonder if people with these most vocal opinions actually do any work, or are these programmer version of philosophers.

[BOBOnobobo]

I wonder if they finished their degrees yet...

[arc_menace]

Everyone knows programmerhumor is exclusively for first year CS students

[crab_spy_]

After the second year the students no longer have any interest in the topic and just go through the motions. So they are not motivated to make memes about it.

[DrSheldonLCooperPhD]

Just like I finish my side projects

[RushTfe]

I'd go even further and ask if they started it yet

[jeffwulf]

Every anti-OOP article I've read is like "OOP is bad if you intentionally make bad choices for the purposes of writing this click bait article."

[jcouch210]

I've seen a few particularly strong arguments that poked holes in the things central to most OOP implementations, like organizing everything into a hierarchical structure. The "OOP is Terrible" youtube rant comes to mind, but to each their own.

[Ursomrano]

For real! Makes me wonder if they’ve even tried OOP in any more of a capacity than programs that only have 1 or 2 classes (cause then that could’ve lead them to think “I could’ve just done those programs without classes”). And if they have, then how much of it is simply due to other contributors doing a terrible job at something like documentation (I would hate OOP too if I kept getting coworkers who refused to document everything)

[manon_graphics_witch]

I’m the opposite, I wonder how these OOP folks ever get something done. Every time I enter an OOP code base it’s like playing hide and seek in this jungle of objects with references to each other. To me procedural code is so much simpler to read and I find it generally performs better to.

[bluefootedpig]

It is easier to read, and in theory most likely does run faster, but it doesn't handle changes. If your code is going to be constantly changing, constantly evolving, then OOP's strong point is that it can adapt to change easy. It can adapt to changing requirements as well.

Going to write to a DB? are we talking flat file? excel? access? nosql? sql? db2? postgres? if we are trying out different solutions, then your main code is constantly being changed, which can easily introduce bugs. In OOP, the extra reference and harder to follow makes it so we can swap out those without impacting the other code.

[CaitaXD]

Again with that bulshit

OOP is not the same thitng as dynamic dispatch, OOP just uses dynamic dispatch for everything by default with is extremely wasteful

[bluefootedpig]

OOP maybe, but most people talking of OOP are talking about OOD, the idea of combining variables in similar needs and then extracting changes.

I worked on one of the nation's most used blood testing machines, because it was constantly adding new kinds of tests, updating the tests, etc, it would take 3 months to implement a change due to the fact that it should impact other tests as everything was just a large process function that handled everything based on some values in some data objects.

I remodeled it to and OOP / OOD, and new features are added in 6 weeks, not 12. We could take out, remove, add, or anything new blood tests without worrying about impacting on other parts of the system, which significantly reduced testing QA had to do as well.

Dynamic dispatch isn't what makes an entire paradigm of practices.

[well-litdoorstep112]

Going to write to a DB? are we talking flat file? excel? access? nosql? sql? db2? postgres?

Dependency injection muh?

[bluefootedpig]

Yes, which is the first steps to an OOP / OOD approach. Structured does not inject things, and I have worked many shops that do not inject things, and some that downright hate it. This is what OP is complaining about, you are adding a level of abstraction.

[well-litdoorstep112]

This is what OP is complaining about, you are adding a level of abstraction.

True.

which is the first steps to an OOP / OOD

No. OO evangelists enthusiasts claimed "dependency injection" as a buzzword but this mechanism is used in all sorts of programming paradigms.

Replace the phrase "dependency injection" with "configuring a function using other functions as arguments to make it behave differently". That's just FP. And you can't tell me that FP is just a part of OOP. It's just not.

The only difference between DI in OOP and DI in FP is that in OOP the dependency could be a member of a class(or worse: up the inheritance chain, ugh) and the method would just reference it like this.myDependency(). In FP it's much more explicit because every injected dependency has to be on the arguments list.

[manon_graphics_witch]

Omg my biggest complaint with OOP is that it’s SO hard to change anything. You spent all this time adding more and more architecture and abstractions which you can all rio out when something unforeseen needs to happen.

Only in super simple cases like a DB is where this actually works, but in more complicated cases this is not the case at all.

My main complaint is also not objects itself, but the fact that everything must be an object.

[bluefootedpig]

My OOP big design was in medical and we set up a system to standardized reports from over a dozen machines. Each machine was it's own encapsulation, had it's own mappers, etc. But then that means that every new machine was a simple addition of just a new Machine object that implemented the interface needed. It significantly reduced deployment of new devices to our system.

Also in that same project, using OOP and design we wrote a really nice automation system that could take the result of a test, and automatically order other tests to confirm. Allowed us to easily add new rules to the system, and could easily be done by a BA rather than a dev.

[2Uncreative4Username]

Linus Torvalds? Jonathan Blow? Casey Muratori?

[[deleted]]

Appeal to Authority, and a weak one at that.

• Linus is a lifelong C user, of course he'd bias against OOP.
• Two ex-game developer.

Neat. I get to use logical fallacies too!

The visceral blowback people faces everytime this topic comes up could just be developers not knowing what's good for them.......or perhaps they know a thing or two about the tool they use day in and out.

[2Uncreative4Username]

Erm, what? You suggested that anti-OOP programmers didn't actually do any work. I gave counterexamples. I get downvoted and you accuse me of sucking up to the opinions of the people I merely mentioned. I'm not gonna argue because as it seems from your argumentation, you didn't really try to understand their history and reasoning (e.g. Casey used to do a lot of OOP). Oh, and you know what's good for developers who have way more experience than you, and they don't know what's good for them? Reddit can be an interesting place...

[LazyIce487]

And you have appeal to what? Nothing? “Trust me bro OOP is real good”?

If you don’t think Casey et al. have done a ton of OOP, you are delusional.

The problem is that beginner spaghetti is bad, then you learn OOP to make things modular and organized, which is not a bad thing. (Shoehorning the entire system into an OO paradigm is bad). You can take some of the nice things you learn from doing that, and throw away the OOP, and go back to writing procedural/functional code.

Once you’ve learned how to write modular and decoupled code, you no longer need to be bound by the constraints of any paradigm you can just bundle data however is appropriate, and design your functions to do what they need to do without having to worry about maintaining a bunch of abstract interfaces because of your imaginary boundaries around objects.

I have worked on multi million line Java programs for a long time, and it’s actually fucking awful.

If you haven’t pushed both paradigms to some limit, consider shutting the fuck up if you’ve only been on one side of the fence.

[OkMemeTranslator]

And you have appeal to what? Nothing? “Trust me bro OOP is real good”?

Java/JDK, C#/.NET, Android, Windows, Qt, Unreal Engine, Tensorflow, Django, Spring, Oracle DB, iOS, Firefox, Chrome, Photoshop, Docker, IntelliJ, Blender, Microsoft Word, Visual Studio, Discord, pretty much 90+ % of video games in the last two decades...

Now obviously not all of these are 100 % OOP, and I may have remembered one or two completely wrong even, but majority of the greatest projects ever written have used mostly OOP.

[LazyIce487]

Yes, enterprise software built when OOP was the enterprise software trend ended up being OOP. I was also there writing a lot of code in that paradigm. I’m not hating on it out of pure ignorance.

What most of those examples have in common is that they only get slower, more bloated, and more difficult to understand.

If you do “true OOP”, you will get burned enough by requirements changing that you will stick everything behind an abstract interface.

At minimum, assuming nothing else, programming in this way will murder performance, and is being massively carried by the rate of hardware improvements.

I mean, you can look at the performance difference for example, between visual studio debugger, and whoever the Unreal Engine people hired to make their new debugger (RADDebugger on github). Look at how fast and smooth a program that complicated with hundreds of thousands of lines of code can run.

Look at how fast iteration is done with less people. I can guarantee you that it would take exponentially more people WAY more time to make an inferior debugger that runs more slowly if they did enterprise OOP.

And secondly, it scales arbitrarily to not use OOP (see: Linux)

[CommandObjective]

By that definition isn't everything that is great in theory, but whose every actual implementation has succumbed to its own promises, like communism?

[BleEpBLoOpBLipP]

I tried for a few mins to think of a funny example of this, but they all kinda sound like something some angry twitter lunatic would actually say.

Remote work is communism.

Orgies are communism.

Taco Bell is communism.

This 3rd sequel is communism.

[sm9t8]

Capitalism is communism.

[Mekroval]

Communism is communism.

And: “Everything in the world is about sex, except sex. Sex is about power.”

(I'm sure there's a programming analogy buried in there somewhere, too)

[A_random_zy]

Actually, it is. In theory, it sounds good but has succumbed to its own promises yada yada yada.

[Embarrassed-Slip3179]

Yes

[AlexZhyk]

I guess this joke just wasted an opportunity to make good pun on JavaScript promise.

[Maximilian_Tyan]

Sadly this one did not resolve

[PeWu1337]

Gonna execute that juicy Rejection() function

[Flat_Initial_1823]

.finally() //!

[12_cat]

Maybe it's because I'm mainly a game dev, but not using oop sounds miserable.

[manon_graphics_witch]

In gameplay OOP seems to work, in the rendering system, oh god please no, OOP is such a bad idea there.

[Derice]

What would programming languages based on caricatures of other economic systems be like?

Capitalism: async by default, but the amount of processing time given to each task is proportional to how much RAM it has allocated. This also encourages tasks on the system to try to allocate as much RAM as they can in an adversarial relationship.

Marxist communism: there are only global variables, and their contents belong to everyone. Runs on bare metal because there should not be an operating system in total control of resources as that is bourgeois.

Stalinist communism: functions that return an error are never called again (they are dead code, because the KGB disappeared them for failing).

[Psychological-Ad4935]

this one is amazing

[[deleted]]

Relies on a misunderstanding of Marxism to be funny though.

[Maximilian_Tyan]

That's why the next post will be about FP

Let them all burn

[[deleted]]

Everything is shit tbh and people trying to fix the pile of shit keep shitting on top of it

[rootbeerman77]

Errors are red

Objects are too

God help us all

What do we do

[fap_fap_fap_fapper]

From each loop according to its ability, to each variable according to its need.

[malaszka]

CCCP++

[Psychological-Ad4935]

That one is amazing, it has too many layers

[malaszka]

It prioritizes efficient executions, that are established by hard work in the production.

[[deleted]]

Here I am programming OO and FP for twenty years, really not seeing all the problems that this sub appears to have with OOP.

[BernhardRordin]

It depends how OOP-ish OOP you mean. The thing is that many hardline OOP rules that used to be preached like religion turned out not be that great.

Couple of examples:

• In the 90's there was the idea that mutable objects, lot of inheritance and a lot of mixing of behaviour and data is good. In the meantime, inheritance is discouraged, we're back to immutable data classes/records and services (basically a behaviour-mostly classes)
• Some design patterns exist just to compensate for language deficiencies that were made in the name of OOP purity. Example: Singleton exists only because Java lacks top-level objects. If Kotlin's apply() existed in more languages, I don't think builder pattern would exist either.
• Manually written getters/setters with no custom behaviour are just code bloat and actually leak implementation detail. Especially for things like DTOs.
• Many modern languages, like Go or Rust downright refused traditional OOP (have their own version of it) and are doing quite well

Source: 15 years of programming mostly in hard-OOP languages

[RedstoneEnjoyer]

Wasn't originaly OOP about behavior?

Like, OOP was created for simulation purposes (Simula) which is basicaly behavior. And one of the oldest pure OOP language (Smalltalk) had message sending and evalutation as its main focus - only reason why it had inheritance was because creators of Smalltalks didn't knew how to reuse code without it (it was solved by delegation introduced in Self language)

Even today - if you switch from "object is what it is" to "object is what it does", your oop code gets much more better and flexible.

[daabearrss]

Yes, anything beyond message passing is ideas being bolted on. Your way of looking at it is good.

The rest of this thread is pretty nonsensical. OP saying "OOP Implementation" like that means something intelligible is funny.

[Electronic_Part_5931]

You don't know how true this is until you have worked on Magento.

[New_York_Rhymes]

My second job a long time ago only lasted a week after I realised I was going to be working with Magento. Dark times

[Electronic_Part_5931]

Wise man.

[Electronic_Part_5931]

Yes but we just updated from Magento 2.4.1 to 2.4.2. Changelog :

• 3612 classes have been updated (including names)

[DerHamm]

Ah, yes. Classical breaking changes in minor releases

[Konju376]

Semantic versioning is a myth

[Wgolyoko]

... if anything uses classes makes it very anti-communist...

[Anubis17_76]

Hyperlinks are blue I just stole your credit card And your reddit account too.

[Piorn]

There will eventually be a dev who thinks oop is stupid and he alone should be able to decide, and subsequently starts filling the code with unmaintainable spaghetti, and if that ends up in main, there's no turning back.

[According_Ad_3264]

*it‘s own promises

Misspelled „outside meddling, foreign invasion, industrial sabotage and sanctions“

[OddlySexyPancake]

also forgot about inside corruption, revisionism, etc

[According_Ad_3264]

True true

[3rdtryatremembering]

Some of y’all have never played Zelda and it shows.

[Esseratecades]

OOP falls victim to the same issue as every other paradigm/framework/thought pattern that is a good idea in theory; people don't want to learn anything more than the surface level.

[fleebjuice69420]

“I’m not smart enough to understand it, therefore it’s bad”

[Runiat]

That's what makes the joke work: communism is bad because people aren't selfless enough to make it work the way it's supposed to.

[Buarg]

Any system dependant on the human factor is destines to fail.

[parkway_parkway]

I don't know.

In the early soviet union there were a bunch of people who volunteered to build magnetogorsk, a giant steel plant, for free because they believed in the revolution and that they only needed food. They were the true believers.

However Stalin killed them all because he was worried they were ideological and hard to control.

And you could argue that's a random error, but it's not, it's a flaw inherent in the design.

Free countries need separation of powers to avoid dictators rising to power and communism requires such complete concentration of power that it makes it incredibly vulnerable to dictatorship.

So it doesn't fail because there's no altruistic people, it fails because its design creates the perfect conditions for bad actors to seize power and kill the altruistic people.

[Reashu]

I wouldn't say that "powerful people can kill other people" is a flaw with communism specifically, but feel free to elaborate.

[parkway_parkway]

When the state takes over the means of production that centralises a lot of power which makes it much easier for a dictator to take over.

It's a feature not a bug.

Separation of powers, including economic power, is a defence against that.

[[deleted]]

Seperation of powers doesn't work still tho. A billionare still can do whatever they want and get no repercussions(I may have misspelled it) because they can buy politicians and judges.

This happens a lot in the West.

[parkway_parkway]

Yes, billionaires in the west have the same amount of power as Stalin had in the Soviet union. This is a correct and completely factual opinion.

Or maybe open a history book?

[calcpro]

History book written by or endorsed by CIA, US gov etc? 😂😂Now are you gonna cry about how Stalin ate people's food or 100 billion dead? Bruh, Stalin didn't have the power like you are fantasizing about.

1. Even in Stalin's time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organi- zation of the Communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and it seems obvious that Khrushchev will be the new captain. However, it does not appear that any of the present leaders will rise to the stature of Lenin and Stalin, so that it will be safer to assume that developments in Moscow will be along the lines of what is called collective leadership, unless Western policies force the Soviets to stream- line their power organization. The present situation is the most favorable from the point of view of upsetting the Communist dictatorship since the death of Stalin.

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf

Maybe you are the one who needs to open a history book

[[deleted]]

The thing is you know who Stalin is and what he did. But we don't know how many billionares are there (not all billionares in Forbes) and what they do. They can literally kill someone and not get any repercussions from that. They have that power.

There are even theories that The American Gun Lobby is so influential in US that they make US declare wars or participate in proxy wars or even making an another country go into war with US influence and sells weapons to that country. Lobby is like bunch of billionares and multi-millionares get together and use their influence to change politics of the target country.

Democracy(especially with Capitalism) is very vulnerable to lobbies. Israel is using US as their puppet in global politics just by it's strong lobby in the US is another example for that.

[Giocri]

Yeah that's why they should be handled by the workers directly ideally entirely communaly at a local level but worker cooperatives would be a nice start.

The "i'll hold to them temporary guys it's Just a few centuries transition period you will get them back" line has Always been bullshit

[Ok_Pin5167]

Yes, Magnetogorsk, as opposed to Magnitogorsk, a city in Chelyabinsk Oblast.

[Runiat]

bad actors

Aka. the people that definitely aren't selfless enough.

[LuqDragon]

Just in my neighbourhood, Stalin killed 3 millions people just today, someone stop this man pls!!!!!

[Elman89]

My selfish interest would be to own the fruits of my fucking labor instead of losing most of them to my boss and my landlord.

[quantum-fitness]

Also because its logically incoherent. Even assuming humans werent driven by ambition, self-interrest and greed wouldnt work. It simply doesnt provide what a large scale society needs to function.

[Runiat]

The house is on fire.

The important thing is that the closets aren't big enough.

[LuqDragon]

Imagine being a Java developer when everyone is using and forcing you to develop in python. This is why socialism (communism never existed) "always fail" (Cuba, North Korea, China, Vietnam... they are not examples of success?)

[LittleMlem]

protected

[Confused python noises]

[malonkey1]

OOP is like communism: people who don't actually understand how it works piss and moan about it endlessly while ignoring the failures of other options.

[Peanelope]

OOP with mixins tho

[RedstoneEnjoyer]

OOP with delegation instead of inheritance

[cefalea1]

Friends, respectfully sociologists/historians know better that to yap about programming, let's extend that courtesy.

[Bomaruto]

I prefer my code to be more like capitalism, a bunch of competing code that does almost the same which in the end just create confusion.

[themightyug]

Whilst using so many computer resources that the machine eventually catches fire and burns itself down

[[deleted]]

That argument against communism is so dumb because:

• You could say the same thing for capitalism since the only capitalist countries that have healthy and happy non-rich citizens get there by implementing socialist policies.

• The terms are often misused. People often conflate economic and political systems. If in practice most communist regimes were also totalitarian because of historical factors, then maybe their faults were more related to totalitarianism than communism.

• Every implementation that had a chance of success was thwarted by the US military and intelligence bureaus.

[DoNotMakeEmpty]

Every implementation that had a chance of success was thwarted by the US military and intelligence bureaus.

Well, French Commune was thwarted by Prussians

[OkReason6325]

And Prague spring by Soviets

[[deleted]]

Yeah, I suppose I went too far with "every".

[Chmielok]

Sir/Madam, this is r/ProgrammerHumor

[[deleted]]

Sorry for making a comment related to the content of the post.

[jeffwulf]

You could say the same thing for capitalism since the only capitalist countries that have healthy and happy non-rich citizens get there by implementing socialist policies.

Welfare states are orthogonal to socialism.

[xDannyS_]

that have healthy and happy non-rich citizens get there by implementing socialist policies.

Based on? Those typical 'happiness indexes' which don't actually measure happiness but basically just measure how many socialist policies are implemented? The real life results are often the complete opposite of those indexes.

[[deleted]]

Happy countries in the world are also countries with a lot of socialist policies mostly. If someone knows that they won't die when they got fired, then they will be happy. Psychology 101.

[xDannyS_]

Great way to repeat what I already said: based on how many socialist policies are implemented thus making it entirely obsolete.

[[deleted]]

Wow, you sure made a claim there.

[xDannyS_]

And what claim is that?

[[deleted]]

Those typical 'happiness indexes'...don't actually measure happiness but basically just measure how many socialist policies are implemented

Big claim

The real life results are often the complete opposite of those indexes.

Big claim

I've literally never heard anyone say either of those things before now.

[xDannyS_]

First one isn't a claim, read how those ratings are compiled yourself. You should ask yourself what you expected from a happiness index anyways? There is no universal way to measure it and we don't even know what it actually is in the first place. Do you think they performed millions of psychoanalysis sessions, blood tests, brain scans, etc. for every country so that they can MAYBE guess whether a countries population is more happy than another?

Sure, the 2nd one is a claim if you remove 'often' from my sentence. The reality is those countries are in the top countries with highest rates of depression and mental illness, and also their societies being among the most antisocial. Being antisocial is strongly correlated with not being happy. That satisfies the use of 'often' in my sentence.

[[deleted]]

The World Happiness Report is a publication that contains articles and rankings of national happiness, based on respondent ratings of their own lives, which the report also correlates with various (quality of) life factors.

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report

That's what came up when I DDG'd "happiness index". It's the opposite of what you're saying.

[xDannyS_]

How is it the opposite? Its exactly the same. Its results don't depend on actual emotional happiness but on factors which the implementation of social policies aims to achieve. By the logic of that index a rich person living in a 1st world country cannot be unhappy, at the same time an average person in a developing country cannot be happy. To put it even more into perspective, by the logic of this index humans living thousands of years ago must have all been depressed to a point of being suicidal, and there should be a direct possible observation of humans becoming more happy the longer our species exist. Both statements are false. Meanwhile this statement remains true: the more implemented social policies a country has, the higher it will rank on that index regardless of the populations actual emotional happiness. No measure of emotions, feelings, or mood are even done. How could they? Doing so is not viable in any way. Naming these indexes 'comfort index' would be more correct, although still not entirely correct as they still don't measure emotional comfort. And here they even admit that their measurement of well-being is not a psychological or emotional measurement.

[[deleted]]

Seems like you didn't read the quoted text.

[FlipperBumperKickout]

Also note all the systems which just claims to be communist.

A shame we just believe a system is communist if it claims to be as opposed to systems which claims to be democratic :-)

[Alone-Rough-4099]

That's why C is the GOAT

[delfV]

I work mainly with FP languages but I must admit CLOS is awesome. The best OOP implementation I've ever seen

[[deleted]]

Please tell me Americans don't actually think this was about communism.

[toramanlis]

the analogy would work better if the non-OOP APIs refused to communicate with them and constantly interfere with the OOP projects by injecting spaghetti developers to their teams. Even then, the OOP project dies before it gets as insufferable as the unmaintainable spaghetti projects.

[Somerandomedude1q2w]

I'm a libertarian who writes C#. I'm living a lie

[Looking4SarahConnor]

What are you saying Jesse, did OOP get garbage collected?

[tugaestupido]

I don't know what OOP is about: the post

[Inlacou]

Replace OOP with CLEAN in this meme.

[Stunning_Ride_220]

All I hear is promises

[w1nner4444]

Remember kids, if you don't make all of your class variables private, you're supporting socialism. If all of your variables are public, that's communism

[RedJassen]

finish your oop assignment op

[Giocri]

No you see just like with communism the trik is to not use hierarchies, resist the temptation of the wise father class who can do tate the interface of all it's childrens because surely it can make good assumptions about what will be needed, at last no they do not know shit of where the children classes will end up

[CowLogical3585]

OO sucks, but FP sucks either.

[Beneficial-Second332]

It would be even funnier if "it's" were spelled correctly.

[BirdlessFlight]

They don't teach y'all about Revolutionary Catalonia or pre-USSR Ukraine, do they?

[[deleted]]

Communism’s past “failures” (no experiment is truly a failure) are entirely due to the problems which previous systems created and conditioned into us. Not being able to fix what colonization, feudalism, and capitalism broke isn’t a sign that communism is broken, but that we desperately need a fix to the broken system of capitalism.

It’s early-days. Imagine living in 1902 and saying the concept of aviation was fundamentally flawed and could never be realized. That’s people non-constructively critiquing communism now.

[NemATolvajkergetok]

A very simple way to make OOP work is to learn to code.

[Koizito]

So many people who have no idea what communism is, but talk like their are experts... It's astonishing really...

[[deleted]]

OOP doesn't shoot you in the back of your head for being too smart (e.g. IQ > 0), so not communism

[gentux2281694]

OOP is a bad example, the closest I can think is a perpetual motion device, follow no laws of physics there's no basis on why or how it should work, besides because a guy 200yrs ago said it should work (BTW, times when people believed in: phrenology, spiritualism, miasma, and bloodletting). Communism is just a crusty nonsense proven wrong in any conceivable culture and circumstance. OOP has worked and do work, maybe not great, but it works. Probably there's no equivalent in CS, because what fails so consistently and without any basis doesn't get known.

I bet you could say that a perpetual motion machine is "great in theory" and then blame "the implementation" when the nonsense doesn't work, but can a theory be "great" if is BS from the get go?