OOP

Is it fair to say that OOP is for people afraid of having a decent type system?

No more or less fair than saying icecream is for people with red hair.

it's only fair to say that talking about a decent type system is like talking about Holy Mary mother of Jesus. It's just plain boring...
so stop talking and do some shit

>>2
I don't disagree.

What is an example of a good type system?

>>4
Lactose intolerant? Or are you somebody's stepchild?

>>5
I'm not OP, but what OP means is "all languages other than Haskell suck, unless you implement Haskell in them."

>>7
And he is right.

Let me know when you make a type that can have variable levels of access, functions that it and only it can use, and the ability to inherit members of other similar types. Once you have that, it's no longer a type system, it's OOP.

OOP makes all type systems obsolete, and pure OOP is the best way of dealing with things (and by pure OOP, I mean like Ruby, but with the speed of a compiled language... and not smalltalk).

>>9
IHBT

>>9
>let me know when you give bad programmers the ability to remove features from programs that haven't been written yet
Nope.

>>9
pure OOP, I mean like Ruby
I! H! B! T!

>>9
http://ocaml.janestreet.com/?q=node/11

>>12
No you haven't. Ruby objects are beautiful

>>14
Ruby in itself is beautiful, right? end

>>14
``Monkey patch LoLzZzZ!!!1!1one!''? Smalltalk has that too. Also, prototypes. Thread over.

MORE LIKE
OOP IS FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO USE EQUALS SIGNS TO MAKE A COMPUTER DO EVERYTHING
AMIRITE LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLZzz!!11oNE!!1ONE1!