>>105945062 >entire tech world is powered by OOP languages
I'm sure you meant this as a positive but this is overwhelming evidence that it's a mistake.
You and I both get to use real software and see firsthand how bad it is. Just like everyone else can.
>>105945142
There is nothing to argue. He showed by his own example that his school of thought is a failure. Why should I listen to this failed programmer?
The purpose of programming is to make things that work. These programming tinkerers never solve problems, they only build castles in the sky.
>>105945016 >biggest achievement >some failed OSes and chrome where there are a billion ways to do the same simple thing and nobody uses any of them, instead opting for an extension
Oh nononono
>>105945198
Where is your totally-not-OOP software used by millions? You didn't make anything? Then shut up. You're not a programmer and has no authority to talk about programming, like your eceleb tinkerers.
>>105945037 >This thing that has been harped on about on /g/ for at least a decade is new to me so I don't know why you think it's old
Lurk more before posting.
>>105945037
history of programming languages is quite interesting and should be a CS course in itself.
There's a reason why those languages that were innovative were made.
>>105945290
watch the video first. you a fool, nigga.
what im saying is, what dead horse? oop being bad? that video isnt about that. he is mostly explaining why we have oop right now and it is not the same reason people usually claim when talking about it.
but THANK GOD llms will replace subhumans like you soon.
