[vegai_]

> If you had that reaction, you might want to take some time to explicitly free your thought process from OOP-isms.

If you have this reaction, perhaps you should take a humility lesson before claiming that a few syntax tricks is all it takes to outsmart people who spent their entire university careers thinking about these problems.

[kristoff_it]

> before claiming that a few syntax tricks is all it takes to outsmart people who spent their entire university careers thinking about these problems

I don't think I have written anything of that sort. Thinking in OOP terms in, say, Java is great. Zig is not an OOP language though, and it cares about mapping nicely to CPU instructions more than it cares about mapping nicely to UML diagrams, so thinking in OOP terms in Zig is not that great, more often than not.

I've seen plenty of people coming into Zig expecting it to conform to their expectations towards object orientation or functional purity. Neither will be able to have a good time if they can't let go of their preconceptions.

[vegai_]

Sorry for misunderstanding the mood and context. In context of Zig, this makes a lot of sense, making my calls for humility premature and tad ironic.

[hsn915]

Nah, OOP is bad. It's been a while since I met anyone, online or offline, who still takes OOP seriously.

[vegai_]

/s, right?

[matheusmoreira]

People spend entire careers thinking about object-oriented programming?

[pjmlp]

https://www.sigplan.org/Conferences/OOPSLA/

[vegai_]

Heh. I'm sure they thought and worked on others things too, but many focused on it, yes.

[revskill]

Not quite, people think in Inheritance instead.

[anonymoushn]

A lot of people have spent their entire industry careers dealing with these problems, and the result seems to be the sentiment you've encountered in this comment section.