[9rx]

> When C++ developers say "OOP" they mean classes, inheritance hierarchies, virtual methods.

Okay, but for that to be true in this case then you must explain how Swift has "better OOP support". If there is no rational explanation for now Swift has "better OOP support" by the metrics you are imagining, as you, me, and everyone else has alluded to earlier, then clearly that isn't what they meant.

> I get the logic chain you're following but that is not a definition that will help anyone communicate with anyone else

Won't help communicate with anyone else meaning that you are the only one capable of understanding the logic chain? I'm sure you are a talented guy, but the world isn't exactly lacking in talented people. I'm sorry to say, but most everyone on HN will have absolutely no trouble understanding this.

[refulgentis]

> Okay, but for that to be true in this case then you must explain how Swift has "better OOP support" by that token.

I did. Swift has `class` types with implementation inheritance. Rust does not. If you're porting a C++ codebase with deep class hierarchies (like, say, a browser DOM), Swift lets you transliterate those hierarchies directly. Rust makes you rethink them into composition and traits. That's a real difference that matters to a team mid-migration, and it's an extremely rational explanation for why a C++ dev would say Swift has "strictly better OOP support."

You don't have to agree it's a large difference (I don't, which was my original point), but "there is no rational explanation" just isn't true. There's a very obvious one, it's just boring.

> If there is no rational explanation, as you, me, and everyone else has alluded to earlier, then clearly that isn't what they meant.

My position was never "there is no rational explanation." My position was "the difference is small enough that 'strictly better' was a weird thing to say." Those are different claims! You're kind of merging me into your argument when we don't actually agree.

> Won't help communicate with anyone else meaning that you are the only one capable of understanding the logic chain?

No, I meant that if you say "C++ is a functional programming language" to mass, any working programmer, they will not understand you, because that is not what those words mean to them. It's not about intelligence, it's about shared vocabulary. You've built a internally-consistent taxonomy where functional = data + functions, OOP = data + message passing, and imperative = data and functions separate. I can follow it fine. But you've redefined three terms that already have widespread, different meanings, and then you're treating disagreement as confusion. That's the communication problem.

[9rx]

> You've built a internally-consistent taxonomy

I'm certainly not clever enough to have built it. Not to mention that the person who coined OOP is quite famous for having done so. I am not him, I can assure you. I have merely ingested it from what is out there in widespread circulation.

I can appreciate that you live in a different bubble and what is widespread there is not the same. It's a pretty big world out there. However, it doesn't really matter as if "C++ is a functional programming language" doesn't jive with your understanding, as you'll simply ask: "What ever do you mean?" and which point "functional programming language" will be defined and a shared understanding will be reached.

This isn't the problem you are imagining.

> I did.

Right. Seems we encountered a communication barrier again. "That's the thing man, there isn't anything." in my world would read "That's the thing man, there are things and here they are: ..." However, this highlights again that it doesn't actually harm communication as further clarification follows and eventually everyone will reach a shared understanding. Communication isn't some kind of TV game show where you have to get the right answer on your first try. This is not a problem in any way, shape, or form.

[refulgentis]

> I'm certainly not clever enough to have built it.

Ha, don't sell yourself short, you're doing a great job defending it.

> However, it doesn't really matter as if "C++ is a functional programming language" doesn't jive with your understanding, you'll simply ask: "What ever do you mean?"

Okay, genuinely, let's try this exercise. You say to me "C++ is a functional programming language." I ask "What ever do you mean?" You say "data is grouped with functions." I say "...that's also true of Python, JavaScript, Kotlin, Scala, Dart, TypeScript, and basically every language designed after 1990. What term do you use for Haskell?" And now we're in another 20-message thread defining terms from scratch instead of talking about the actual thing.

Like, you've got a taxonomy where imperative/functional/OOP is a clean trichotomy based on how data relates to code. That's elegant! But it also means "functional programming" contains both Haskell and Java, which in practice need to be distinguished from each other far more often than they need to be grouped together. The Kay-pure definitions give you clean categories at the cost of useful ones.

*Obj-C doesn't even pass muster of the Kay-pure definition, which renders the whole conversation moot.*

> "That's the thing man, there isn't anything." in my world would read "That's the thing man, there are things and here they are: ..."

Okay, fair hit. :) What I meant was: there's nothing that would make a C++ team say "strictly better." Swift has classes with inheritance, sure. But "strictly better" implies Rust can't even get close, and it can-you just model things differently. The Ladybird team discovered this themselves, which is... kind of the whole story here? They said "strictly better OOP support," tried it, and now have removed Swift. The claim didn't survive contact with their own codebase. That was the entire point of my original comment sitting at -3. (now at +2)

> Communication isn't some kind of TV game show where you have to get the right answer on your first try.

No, but Hacker News comments at -3 do get grayed out and collapsed, so in practice it kind of is, unfortunately.

[9rx]

> What term do you use for Haskell?

In the context of the dimension we have been talking about, it is also functional. There is no difference between Haskell, Python, Java, etc. in that particular dimension. All of those languages you list are quite different in other dimensions, of course. Are you under the impression that programming languages are one dimensional? Unfortunately, that is not the case.

> And now we're in another 20-message thread defining terms from scratch instead of talking about the actual thing.

Especially when we find out that what we really wanted to talk about was type systems. Thinking of programming languages as being one dimensional is a fool's errand.

> But it also means "functional programming" contains both Haskell and Java, which in practice need to be distinguished from each other far more often than they need to be grouped together.

Right, there may be a need to separate them, but sensibly you would separate them on the dimension that is relevant to the separation intent, not some other arbitrary quality. For example, perhaps your interest is in separating mutability and immutability. Therefore, something like "Haskell is an immutable-by-default programming language" would be an appropriate statement in that desired context. "Haskell is a statically-typed programming language", not so much.

> No, but Hacker News comments at -3 do get grayed out and collapsed, so in practice it kind of is, unfortunately.

I'll still read your comments if they turn grey. I don't care about what color they are. This isn't a problem.