OOP

Why do we need it, when we've associative lists and hashtables?


my_hash["type_tag"] = "Dog".

And no OOP required.

>>10
OOP is rightfully on the decline.
Good to hear, because OOP is based on jewish Set Theory (classes are sets), so Set Theory must be wrong, from which follows that jews are wrong and deserved their place in gas chamber.

>>9
In dynamically and duck typed languages like FIOC, FFOC (aka LUA), and so, class instance member lookups are implemented with associative data structures anyway, so it's no different than doing it manually.
Nope. Lua and Python use "metaclasses", which are intended to simulate mathematical sets. And math is a pseudoscience.

>>14
But >>13 is right. The idea of OOP classes is to simulate mathematics, which fundamentally wrong. And when foundation is wrong, you building'll collapse, as collapses OOP. The Right Thing is to construct entities evolutionary, without classes. Like IRL evolution takes two Dogs and syntheses third dog, directly from cells of its parents.

>>15
That's not "evolution," that hereditary.  Learn the goddamn difference.

And, for the record, I'd also rather not write programs that simulate the possibility of a desired existence based on ten millions years running time (even if we scale that down by clockspeed).

>>16
That is EVOLUTION. Two dogs can create third only when they're successful (chewed on some ugly jew). And this jew can't create a child, because his pseudoscientific theory was exposed and he was feed to the dogs.

>>16
>based on ten millions years running time
In some cases evolution can go into singularity and adapt pretty fast. This is, for example, how man made dog from wolf:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tame_silver_fox