3 ms·

Well, since you ask, I downvoted you for restating the false equivalence between OOP and inheritance, for the abjectly incorrect (and also, wholly unconstructiv

Well, since you ask, I downvoted you for restating the false equivalence between OOP and inheritance, for the abjectly incorrect (and also, wholly unconstructive) straw-man statement that no-one agrees what OOP is, for the frankly absurd and wilfully ignorant claim that no-one articulates practical examples for the circumstances when inheritance rather than composition might actually be worth considering, and for bitching about downvotes, particularly that explicit assumption that they’re coming from people wedded to inheritance, and not from people who dislike disingenuous arguments and circular reasoning. Read a fucking book, instead. David West’s Object Thinking, for example.

throwaway894345 5y ago
> Well, since you ask, I downvoted you for restating the false equivalence between OOP and inheritance, for the abjectly incorrect statement that no-one agrees what OOP is, for the frankly absurd and wilfully ignorant claim that no-one articulates practical examples for the circumstances when inheritance rather than composition might actually be worth considering, and for bitching about downvotes, particularly the explicit assumption that they’re coming from people wedded to inheritance, and not from people who dislike disingenuous arguments of any form. Read a fucking book. David West’s Object Thinking, for example. Thank you for clarifying that your downvote was definitely not an emotional overreaction. :)
- inopinatus 5y ago
  > Thank you for clarifying that your downvote was definitely not an emotional overreaction. :) Smileys don’t turn snide into humour, so now you can add “naked ad hominem” to the litany of downvote attractors.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    I thought it was the italics. In which ever case, this conversation has definitely been fruitful and enlightening. Thank you for your contributions. . . . . . :)
    - inopinatus 5y ago
      This line of vacuousness merely continues to highlight how brittle and indefensible the original arguments were.
Zababa 5y ago
Could you argue your point a bit more than directing people to a book? You've listed what you disgree with, now's the time to back up your claims.
- inopinatus 5y ago
  Bad-faith trolls demanding “why did you downvote me” get at most list of their sins and references to improve. Read it, don’t read it, up to you, but I don’t spoonfeed sealions. Reading books is the best inoculation against being suckered by Barnum statements like “no one really agrees on what <concept> is” or “no-one says <thing readily found in books>”. Further reading: Refactoring (Fowler), Smalltalk Best Practice Patterns (Beck).
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    Sorry I hurt your feelings friend. I hope you’re able to work through this. Best of luck.
    - inopinatus 5y ago
      No-one's "feelings", whatever that entails, are hurt, and we're not friends. I recommend not making any more false statements.

throwaway894345 5y ago

> Well, since you ask, I downvoted you for restating the false equivalence between OOP and inheritance, for the abjectly incorrect statement that no-one agrees what OOP is, for the frankly absurd and wilfully ignorant claim that no-one articulates practical examples for the circumstances when inheritance rather than composition might actually be worth considering, and for bitching about downvotes, particularly the explicit assumption that they’re coming from people wedded to inheritance, and not from people who dislike disingenuous arguments of any form. Read a fucking book. David West’s Object Thinking, for example. Thank you for clarifying that your downvote was definitely not an emotional overreaction. :)

inopinatus 5y ago
> Thank you for clarifying that your downvote was definitely not an emotional overreaction. :) Smileys don’t turn snide into humour, so now you can add “naked ad hominem” to the litany of downvote attractors.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  I thought it was the italics. In which ever case, this conversation has definitely been fruitful and enlightening. Thank you for your contributions. . . . . . :)
  - inopinatus 5y ago
    This line of vacuousness merely continues to highlight how brittle and indefensible the original arguments were.

Zababa 5y ago

Could you argue your point a bit more than directing people to a book? You've listed what you disgree with, now's the time to back up your claims.

inopinatus 5y ago
Bad-faith trolls demanding “why did you downvote me” get at most list of their sins and references to improve. Read it, don’t read it, up to you, but I don’t spoonfeed sealions. Reading books is the best inoculation against being suckered by Barnum statements like “no one really agrees on what <concept> is” or “no-one says <thing readily found in books>”. Further reading: Refactoring (Fowler), Smalltalk Best Practice Patterns (Beck).
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  Sorry I hurt your feelings friend. I hope you’re able to work through this. Best of luck.
  - inopinatus 5y ago
    No-one's "feelings", whatever that entails, are hurt, and we're not friends. I recommend not making any more false statements.