Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> it would /could look fundamentally the same.

Yeah, the usage does, but the definition does not, the implementation does not, and the features are very different.

For example, "new" is just a convention here, not an actual constructor, as Rust does not have constructors.

> You create a window object and then call a bunch of its methods (mutating its state). That's OOP.

It depends on what you mean by "object". If structs are objects, then OOP boils down to only "you can use x.y() instead of y(x)", which I don't think is a good way to think about programming languages or their features. YMMV, of course.

> I think the Rust people just desperately

I can assure you, that's not the case for me at least; I love OOP languages enough to have both Ruby and Perl logos tattoo'd onto my body.

I don't like saying Rust is OOP because of said definitions elsewhere in the thread, as well as people struggling to map their OOP patterns over. If they hear "Rust is OOP", they expect to be able to do OOP-like things, and when they can't, that's a big frustration. Enough so that we had to add that book chapter.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: