this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2025
949 points (99.3% liked)

Programmer Humor

22112 readers
956 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 58 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Nothing wrong with classes in functional programming though. Just return a new instance of the class from your method, rather than mutating an existing instance.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 24 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Right, I think the two aren't as different as they appear. You can think of a closure as an object with just one method.

If OO programming is fundamentally about objects sending messages to each other, then there are many ways to approach that. Some of those ways are totally compatible with functional programming.

The legacy of C++ has dominated what OOP is "supposed" to be, but it doesn't have to work like that.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Javascript:

I heard you like mutating class data so I'm mutating the data you can put in your class data, dawg.

[–] underisk@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 month ago

JavaScript: a language for mutants.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 33 points 1 month ago (12 children)

Do anarchists think anarchy will result in a system with no classes?

[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 51 points 1 month ago (31 children)

Yes, because anarchism is against all hierarchies and the class system is a form of hierarchy. Instead, decisions should me made collectively, for example in councils open for everyone

[–] SneakyAlba@ioc.exchange 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

@lugal @danc4498 Anarchism is against specifically unjust hierarchies, it can permit certain ones to exist within individual communities should the community find it justified, but still strongly favours not having any where possible.

There are a group of anarchists who would still believe in the idea of an adult > child hierarchy as they struggle to imagine an alternative world without it.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (9 children)

Parents have natural bootmaker authority and if you want to be a good parent then you realise that the kids also have it: They, or maybe better put their genome, know how they need to be raised, and try to teach you, as well as (with increasing age) seek out the exact bootmakers that seem sensible. Worst thing you can do as a parent is to think that learning is a one-way street.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] pcalau12i@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Anarchism thus becomes meaningless as anyone who defends certain hierarchies obviously does so because they believe they are just. Literally everyone on earth is against "unjust hierarchies" at least in their own personal evaluation of said hierarchies. People who support capitalism do so because they believe the exploitative systems it engenders are justifiable and will usually immediately tell you what those justifications are. Sure, you and I might not agree with their argument, but that's not the point. To say your ideology is to oppose "unjust hierarchies" is to not say anything at all, because even the capitalist, hell, even the fascist would probably agree that they oppose "unjust hierarchies" because in their minds the hierarchies they promote are indeed justified by whatever twisted logic they have in their head.

Telling me you oppose "unjust hierarchies" thus tells me nothing about what you actually believe, it does not tell me anything at all. It is as vague as saying "I oppose bad things." It's a meaningless statement on its own without clarifying what is meant by "bad" in this case. Similarly, "I oppose unjust hierarchies" is meaningless statement without clarifying what qualifies "just" and "unjust," and once you tell me that, it would make more sense you label you based on your answer to that question. Anarchism thus becomes a meaningless word that tells me nothing about you. For example, you might tell me one unjust hierarchy you want to abolish is prison. It would make more sense for me to call you a prison abolitionist than an anarchist since that term at least carries meaning, and there are plenty of prison abolitionists who don't identify as anarchist.

[–] KindaABigDyl@programming.dev 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Isn't anarchy just against imposed hierarchy? Most anarchists I've met are okay with heirarchies that form naturally, and believe those hierarchies to be enough for society to function, hence why they call themselves anarchists, not minarchists.

[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 14 points 1 month ago

I have never heard the term minarchist. Many anarchists say, we need structures against the building of hierarchies, like avoiding knowledge hierarchies by doing skillshares.

Natural authorities are a different topic. I think Kropotkin was an example of a leader who was accepted because everyone agreed with him. Once he said something people didn't like, they rejected him as a leader. You can call this a hierarchy if you like. I wouldn't because he couldn't coerce his followers but this is pure terminology.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (14 children)

So, do the anarchists not think that capitalism will just prevail and bring along with it the classes of the haves and have nots? Anarchy won’t solve the problem of wealth inequality, will it? I have genuinely never understood this aspect of anarchism.

[–] groet@feddit.org 27 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The system where someone monopolizes a essential good and leverages that to gain power is called anarcho-capitalism and is a whole different thing. In anarchy, ownership on that level does not exist. Neither a company nor a person can own a factory, or a farm, or the power grid. Employment doesn't exist. People can band together and distribute tasks for a common goal (such as producing a certain good) but they all hold equal stake in all decisions.

Of course a group of people could use violence to oppress other people. But then you no longer have anarchy. The same way a democracy stops beeing a democracy once a group seizes power and doesn't allow fair elections anymore.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Neither a company nor a person can own a factory, or a farm, or the power grid

And who is going to stop a company from owning a factory or a farm? It wouldn’t even require violence for a company to do so. It just requires them to have enough resources to pay people to do it.

I guess I don’t see what you call “anarchy” as a system that would ever exist more than a year. The end result would always be “anarcho-capitalism”. That, or, people would have to form their own government to prevent that system.

[–] 10001110101@lemm.ee 12 points 1 month ago (4 children)

The company would need violence. There's no reason for workers to work in a factory for less money than their goods are sold for, and there's no reason for the company to pay workers more than the goods are sold for. Without violence the workers could just produce and sell the goods themselves and ignore the company.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Of course a group of people could use violence to oppress other people. But then you no longer have anarchy.

The irony is that the amount of coordination needed to protect anarchism would no longer be called anarchism

You will always end up recreating some form of organizations to manage resources. The best you can do is ensure those organizations are structured with accountability to make sure they're fair to everybody

[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The irony is that the amount of coordination needed to protect anarchism would no longer be called anarchism

This is a common misunderstanding. While there are anti organisationist anarchists, others dream of a world while spanning confederation based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid. Anarchism in general isn't the absence of organization but the absence of hierarchy and domination (therefore isn't anticapitalist in nature)

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

It is anticapitalist by nature in that capitalism is a system where a person can own the means of production and use that ownership to acquire profits. That ownership is a form of domination and creates an arbitrary hierarchy, who makes all the decisions: the owner, why do they make all the decisons: because they had the wealth to buy the company.

You can have organization and markets though without capitalism, such as with anarcho-syndaclism. Basically you have a bunch of coops that are run and controlled by elected workers councils that can trade with each other voluntarily.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] frezik@midwest.social 8 points 1 month ago

That's more or less where anarcho-syndaclism goes. Get all the workers into unions who take over their companies and turn them into co-ops. Then the co-ops collaborate and you don't need the state or anything else.

[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Anarchism is anti capitalist in nature since capitalism entails hierarchies

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I just don’t understand how people think an anarchy can protect itself from capitalism.

[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Let's take the most "conservative" form of anarchism: anarchosyndicalism. Every factory is organized in councils, confederated both with the import or mining council and the consumer council. Now a capitalist comes and asks how much this factory costs. Do you think the council will tell them a price or to fuck off?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (28 replies)
[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 month ago

Depends on the anarchist. Many would focus on seeking the absence of involuntary power hierarchies. A manager who distributes work and does performance evaluations isn't intrinsically a problem, it's when people doing the work can't say "no, they're a terrible manager and they're gone", or you can't walk away from the job without risking your well-being.

Anarchists and communists/socialists have a lot of overlap. There's also overlap with libertarians, except libertarians often focus on coercion from the government and don't give much regard to economic coercion. An anarchist will often not see much difference between "do this or I hit you" and "do this or starve": they both are coercive power hierarchies.
Some anarchists are more focused on removing sources of coercion. Others are more focused on creating relief from it. The "tear it down" crowd are more visible, but you see anarchists in the mutual aid and community organization crowds as well.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

Anarchists recognize class as a social construct rather than a biological imperative or a free market condition. As a result, they will often make a point of transgressing or undermining the pageantry that class-centric organizations cling to.

Its not that they think "no classes" will be a result so much as they think "explicitly defying class" is a political act.

[–] Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They define anarchy differently from the common definition. Anarchists believe in creating community organizations to serve the needs of society, but they refrain from calling it a state because they believe a state requires a monopoly on the acceptable use of violence.

They don't think that we should just dissolve society and let everyone fend for themselves to eliminate class, unless they're an edgy teenager.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] missingno@fedia.io 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Anarchy means "without hierarchy". Classes are a hierarchy, so by definition it wouldn't be anarchy if you don't dissolve class.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 month ago

Anarchism is not the thing you're told about in the media. It isn't a total lack of all government. It's a removal of hierarchical systems and exploitation. There still needs to be systems to protect people from these. They'd just be done through concensus.

This page has more information if you want to learn. https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionA.html#seca1

[–] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 month ago

It's actually right in the name. Anarchy from an-arkhos means "without ruler". They think hierarchies are illegitimate per se.

[–] underwire212@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] a14o@feddit.org 28 points 1 month ago

Revolution is a monad

[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] juliebean@lemm.ee 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

wow, there are some really steaming takes on anarchism in the comments here.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 month ago

Protest anonymously, function anonymously.

[–] zqwzzle@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Dunno how accurate this is but if you like doing those quizzes see where you fall on leftist values. https://leftvalues.github.io/index.html

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] 30p87@feddit.org 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

@Instantnudel@feddit.org 🚩🏴🚩🏴🚩🏴

[–] instantnudel@feddit.org 10 points 1 month ago

Ich freue mich über ihre Frage. Ich fühle mich geehrt hier zu sein. Ich möchte ihnen jetzt garkein vorwurf machen aber sie haben diese Frage doch auswendig gelernt. Sie haben unser Programm nichtmal gelesen. Würden sie Habeck auch so eine Frage stellen? Jetzt unterbrechen sie mich nicht!

[–] sirico@feddit.uk 8 points 1 month ago

Declare your intentions!

[–] dangling_cat@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 month ago

Depends on how pure you want it to be, without any side effects

load more comments
view more: next ›