Piero Bosio Social Web Site Personale

@pixx @mcc If you remove tires from a car it will be lighter, if a car is lighter it will go faster, so removing tires makes a car go faster . . .

@mcc oh one example is when people have superstitious beliefs regarding performance. like "if you use fewer variables the program will be faster".

it's only a proton if it comes from the steam deck region of valve corporation, otherwise it's just a sparkling wine

@mcc right, it comes from that tradition of functional programming. I don't think lack of garbage collection is the single issue (you can also have linear functional programming languages without garbage collection) but that the imperative style, which is in ocaml already tbf, has taken over.

@mcc Oh I don't consider mirth OO, I think of it as a concatenative functional language with some OO ideas. I just think everyone has a different idea of what OO is & it was interesting to hear that you considered Rust to be OO. I've also heard people describe Rust as a functional language, which is wild to me.

@mcc Thanks for the answer! I wonder if mirth falls under OO in this perspective; we have ADTs and methods like rust, type-based dispatch, but not traits (not yet anyway).

But more importantly we don't have mutable references in mirth, idk to what extent mutable references are a necessary part of OO?

@mcc in your view, what is the difference between class-based OO and what rust has? If rust's types were called classes, what would be missing?