Classes Considered Harmful [pdf]

Plato would argue that there is such a thing as a chair. In fact, he'd argue there is an ideal of a chair which all chairs strive to achieve. The idea of Platonic Form (and the allegory of the cave) are very relevant to programming because western philosophy has shaped how we view the world, and thus how we program. That being said, I don't think most people I know are familiar with platonic forms, or the allegory of the cave, so perhaps a programming language based around that idea isn't very strong.

In my experience, the vast majority of people who program are doing so not as their full-time job, but out of necessity. This includes scientists, analysts, academics, accountants, etc. If I had to guess, these individuals write way more code as a whole than full-time developers. Adherence to the ideals object-oriented programming is extremely uncommon from what I've seen. I see a lot of copy-and-pasted code in one gigantic class, and a mish-mash of programming styles from wherever they stole their code from. Testing is completely unknown to them.

I think a lot of these considered harmful discussions are carried along by the impact GOTO Considered Harmful had on the programming world, but I don't think they actually address concerns that affect the vast majority of people writing code. They are of obvious interest to Hacker News readers because people here are trying to maximize their productivity and are extremely tech savvy already, but if you are trying to write a language which minimizes the impact that mistakes make on the world I think you should look at where the vast majority of code is being written. The biggest players already have the knowledge to program effectively, it's about creating ways of coding that make good programming more intuitive, and I don't think OO is the problem there.

That reminded me of Bob Martin on "object oriented C" - https://youtu.be/t86v3N4OshQ?t=1120

I, being one of the few people on HN that like OOP, dont find anything you mentioned that organized, clean or simplified like oop.

No copy is available in rust. Overloading a generic function seems like we are talking about interfaces. A preprocessor step again is similar to rust.

But only the second has anything to do with writing in oop

The premise is wrong, read the POODR book.

Well I'm a lover of scala and I dislike deep inheritence.

That's actually why I love the model of golang and rust. They model the real world more closely.

When you look at a desk, how do you define it?

Well if it's a wooden desk it's actually the type Wood and it porbably has 4 table legs and probably a desk size of x*x. So this is way easier to represent with Subtyping, since a Desk can be made of wooden, but doesn't need to, so with structual inheritance that would mean a lot of boilerplate if you would need to define all type's of desks while in rust you would just add the impl trait to any of the base struct's, etc.

Also deep inheritance can be nasty to debug, even Scala will probably move to a more flat level in their collections library.