this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2026
554 points (96.9% liked)

Programmer Humor

30504 readers
2188 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 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 72 points 1 month ago (1 children)

replaces Classes with Functions

code is still parsed from the top down and some functions are more privileged than others

It's just like Lenin wanted!

[–] Juice@midwest.social 24 points 1 month ago

The Comintern has reviewed this comment and found it quite funny

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 61 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Sometimes I still see job postings that are like "MUST KNOW OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING" and I'm wondering who in 2026 isn't at least passably familiar with it.

But then again I also see job posts that are like "must know Java or JavaScript"

[–] favoredponcho@lemmy.zip 32 points 1 month ago (3 children)

A lot of those posts will also include shit like must know XML and AJAX and it’s clear the recruitment division hadn’t updated their template in ages.

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What is not clear is if the software development division updated their practices.

[–] MirrorGiraffe@piefed.social 3 points 1 month ago

Exactly, if there's even the slightest risk that I'll need to dust off the good ol ajax that's a nope from me.

There’s a lot of legacy stuff around. I saw some CORBA in the wild recently.

[–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 weeks ago

So many sites still use that with a shiny UI slapped on top.

[–] Cube6392@beehaw.org 19 points 1 month ago

in 2026 you really have to ask an employer what they mean by object oriented programming in the interview. do they mean a methodology of organizing pure functional code into actors and message busses? do they mean imperitive code that's interacted with through generic interfaces as with python? or do they mean javascipt style OOP where you define classes to organize your imperitive code within a functional language without any concern for the generic interfaces this could hypothetically enable?

[–] ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 month ago

Considering most people only know procedural programming and are calling it functional/objective...

[–] red_tomato@lemmy.world 36 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] xep@discuss.online 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Deploy broken code straight to prod?

[–] cows_are_underrated@feddit.org 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Testing is for those who are not confident in their programming skills.

[–] Zos_Kia@jlai.lu 5 points 1 month ago

testing is doubting

[–] a14o@feddit.org 27 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] entwine@programming.dev 12 points 1 month ago

sieze(worker, ObjectFactory.meansOfProduction);

[–] ZomieChicken@sh.itjust.works 24 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Or do as Alan Kay wants and start calling it "Message-Oriented Programming".

"I'm sorry that I long ago coined the term "objects" for this topic because it gets many people to focus on the lesser idea. The big idea is "messaging"."

https://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/1998-October/017019.html

[–] entwine@programming.dev 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I still get sad when I think about Objective C and how it didn't take off vs C++ just because it had ugly syntax (which becomes beautiful once you understand why it is the way it is)

[–] bestboyfriendintheworld@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I’m still mad at Apple for making Swift instead of Objective-C 3.0. It was such a powerful and small language.

C++ has a billion features and Swift is getting more every year.

Objective-C was fast to compile, great in a debugger, and allowed lots of creativity and patching broken system components.

Lots of great software was written with it. CocoaBindings are magical.

[–] plyth@feddit.org 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] entwine@programming.dev 2 points 1 month ago

Both C++ and Objective-C aimed to be "C with classes". C++ does it by hijacking existing syntax (struct), Objective-C does it by adding new syntax, while leaving the original minimalism of C untouched.

In fact, it's a strict superset of C, which means it doesn't change anything at all in C, it only appends. So every valid C program is a valid Objective C program (which is not true for C++).

You know how some C programs are valid C++ programs though? Well, those same programs can use Objective C features too, meaning you're able to use them in C++... Meaning you're able to code in "Objective C++" (which is very common for interop purposes)

[–] presoak@lazysoci.al 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I skimmed that.

So you've got a bunch of message transceivers (aka objects). And the magic is in the message soup.

Yes?

[–] ZomieChicken@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

From my understanding, yes. Personally, I've seen so many different definitions of "OOP" (most of which were incoherent), I developed my own definition of what an 'object' is, and just go on with life.

[–] Lili_Thana@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Fuck OOP all my homies use DOD.

[–] pipe01@programming.dev 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] Lili_Thana@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
[–] SexualPolytope@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It's DoW now, baby. And apparently, it's over 50,000.

[–] Juice@midwest.social 3 points 1 month ago

This but unironically

[–] Bazell@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 month ago

And then the code has removed your whole database.

[–] rain_worl@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

in scheme, everything* is first class!
*i haven't checked