> If the answer to that question is "yes and no," it'd be less ambiguous to simply say, "no." And that would be a definitive way of indicating that it woul be inappropriate to apply many patterns from object oriented languages to Go -- and to encourage people to accept Go for what it is. Go does facilitate data grouping towards a subject or an object. In fact, even C does that. By grouping your data and methods towards an object, you attained OO. Hence, that's the "yes" part. It's all down to your languages' mastery.
The "No" part is that Go, C, and even Rust are not honoring "polymorphism" where this contradicts 1/6 main traits of the OOP (thanks god but that's not a dare). Polymorphism had been a known problem for bloating and causing unwanted spaghettied data definitions all over the places AND confuse basic programming paradigm like "bloating class vs when to use modules" case. These problems had been plaguing known languages like Ruby. Since the "Car" object is mentioned, try updating "Car" definition after you defined 2000+ car derivatives and its sub-derivatives using polymorphism, deployed across the world. I'm pretty sure various depts will come after you (either by their incompetence in OOP or your update broke their derived definitions). Therefore, Go, C, Rust, and similar, as an improvement measure, all work towards OOP's compositions heavily. Bottomline: it depends on how deep you understand OO paradigm and how far you mastered a programming language OR be blindly religious about OOP. Site-note: fanatism never ends well anywhere in this world; it had been proven and tested by time. > Cars do not fly. Planes don’t use roads. Classes are abstractions that model required attributes that in turn compose a system to do useful work. Both boats and cars move. You can use a boat to get from a to b if there is no water. > If someone said “I have a car for sale”, and you showed up and it had no wheels but a hull and a sail - you might be a bit upset. > Whether Go is a car or a boat is up to the experts. Your examples have something to do with the developer's psychological problem for failing to distingush between objects; not OO, OOP, or any programming languages. Neither Java or Go can rescue your situation. You should consider: 1. Review his/her manager's work ethics for possible abusement. 2. Get psychological help online for him/her. 3. Communicate with your PM for porject's risk mitigation. 4. Help him/her find a comaptible job. Regards, Holloway On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 9:44:54 AM UTC+8 ren...@ix.netcom.com wrote: > Human beings survive by classifications and compartmentalizing. Applying a > label associates it with certain traits. > > If someone said “I have a car for sale”, and you showed up and it had no > wheels but a hull and a sail - you might be a bit upset. > > Whether Go is a car or a boat is up to the experts. > > On Nov 23, 2022, at 7:27 PM, Rob Pike <r...@golang.org> wrote: > > Let me ask, because I'm genuinely curious: Why does it matter? The labels > we apply to things do not affect their function. Perhaps it affects how we > think about them. Is that it? > > -rob > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "golang-nuts" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to golang-nuts...@googlegroups.com. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAOXNBZS1vuSVcuHHgybwQH6e39ZRFH1eZaBUw%3D6nUj5sbpij%3DA%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAOXNBZS1vuSVcuHHgybwQH6e39ZRFH1eZaBUw%3D6nUj5sbpij%3DA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/8aaff17a-2462-46f4-8d01-9737234393c7n%40googlegroups.com.
