Chat, is he right?
I am a nocoder who watches fireship btw
>>109635248He has a dutch name, so no I don't believe the OG jews.
Yes. Programming should be strictly mathematical.
>>109635286>Yes. Programming should be strictly mathematical.It never was, it was always an abstraction away form it.
>>109635248These days you just ask codex to make something and it doesn't matter what kind of programming it chooses to useI haven't looked at superclasses in years.
Depends, if you have some smol script don't be a fucking retard and write six million lines of useless code across 1488 files
>>109635248No each type of programming language is a tool that has its own use cases. Its like arguing an orange is better than an apple
>>109635286Programming should never have strayed away from Assembly
>>109635248OOP is good in theory
>>109635248Maybe he was right, idk. But a thing I know: he is one of the most overrated computer scientist ever. Donald Knuth comes second.
>>109635286This. The only ways to verify program correctness at scale are OOP (bad) and proof-oriented programming (good). The latter will slowly take over thanks to AI-driven automated proofs.
>>109635512>proof oriented programmingsure.but first fix that shit because the methods we have at our disposal are hilariously bad
>>109635248OOP is not bad, but it can feed into a programmer's bad habits of overcomplicated simple stuff. Left unchecked, you may end up with TemplateInterfaceFactorySetterBuilderObservers and other unholy abominationsIt is, ultimately, a skill issue, but it's worth taking into consideration if you know you have a tendency to to this kind of stuff, Self-imposed limitations aren't always bad
>>109635248>historical illiteracyoop is the true white mans paradigm.
>>109635286How are objects not mathematical? Mathematics loves to package a bunch of crap into new definitions. Same thing.
>>109636030In fact it would be unnatural not to use OOP. Can't imagine mathematics without it, and there is no reason programming should be much different.
>>109635248>ChatBe sure to like and subscribe.
>>109636087>maths:>nooooo, you cant use a pointer!!!! its breaks the whole model !!!!1!!1!!when you mix mathfags and programming,thats how you get rust
>>109636030Well most if not all mathematics don't have a concept of state. You could consider objects with properties or collections as mathematical but mutation is purely a computer science paradigm.
>>109636146Fair enough. I suppose immutable OOP would be the closest thing to mathematics.
>>109635248"Everything is a class" is fine, you can always make a static class that works in the same way as a namespace would. Every programming paradigm is compatible with OOP. Just don't overuse inheritance and you will be fine
>>109636146turing machine literally encodes state you moron
>>109636146>most if not all mathematics don't have a concept of stateAlgorithm = programIntermediate results = state
>>109635252kek
>>109636146daddy what is group theory?what is numerical analysisdaddy all this math state doesn't exist until you tell mewahhh
>>109635248But Simula originated in Norway..
>>109637069shut up, you retarded ESL
California was right-wing back then, while Texas was blue, at least the place where he was sitting (probably blue even these days).heres an updated quote:> OOP doesnt make much sense in a low-level (compiled) language context. C++ born at times when machines were retarded, non-64-bit, so a merge of low and high level concepts could be justified. these days - not.me, the author. screencap and distrobluete> compiled main loops are going to extincthow would you live with that knowledge? what would you do?
>>109635248He was never wrong.
>>109635248OOP doesn't exist.When you try discussing It, you quickly realize it doesn't mean anything specific - every person you ask about it has a different opinion about what it is - so it's best to ignore the subject entirely.
>>109635391but oranges are objectively superiour to apples
>>109635248that is a banger of a quote
