2 ms·

> I listed the OOP traits supported by Rust as a language. So is the list missing items? > Naturally you have to nitpick it to try to make a point out of noth

by Ygg2 2y ago

> I listed the OOP traits supported by Rust as a language. So is the list missing items? > Naturally you have to nitpick it to try to make a point out of nothing. What did I nitpick? Does Python have encapsulation beyond gentlemen's agreement? Can't C have any of the listed behaviors?

pjmlp 2y ago
Python OOP != Rust OOP, but you naturally already knew that. However, in case you need some help, in regards to Python Classe inheritance, function and data members, dynamic dispatch, polymorphism, meta-classes. And even if C doesn't offer direct language support for a OOP type system, that isn't stopping anyone, like the Linux kernel and GNOME/Gtk+. Or publishing books on the matter, http://www.freetechbooks.com/object-oriented-programming-with-ansi-c-t551.html http://www.freetechbooks.com/object-oriented-programming-wit...
- Ygg2 2y ago
  > Python OOP != Rust OOP, but you naturally already knew that. No. Bold of you to assume that. I wasn't aware that one OOP isn't another OOP. I see, so OOP is a fuzzyish definition that you check more checkboxes to satisfy. If Rust is OOP, and Python is OOP and C is OOP, then the that circles back to my initial claims. A category that is so wide it's effectively useless. Compare this to sync and async. A precise definition, much greater informational content. You can prove something is pure or not[1]. Compare this to OOP, imprecise, less informational context, impossible to (dis)prove something is OOP or not. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43XaZEn2aLc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43XaZEn2aLc