I'm not announcing the death of object-oriented programming, I just liked the title. Yes, it's effectively click-bait and I don't apologise because I like it and because it is an explicit reference.
An explicit reference to what?
this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2025
10 points (69.2% liked)
Programming
23856 readers
210 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Now, it would be fair to say that the inheritance hierarchy here is badly designed, wrong, doesn't actually make sense, and has nothing to do with object-oriented programming in the first place anyway. Also, wasting the 8 bytes of the width and height properties is meaningless in the grand scheme of things and thus the larger waste of time is thinking about this whole issue at a all. And maybe it is, but that is not a universal truth: this is engineering, and it is all about trade-offs. In a real-world inheritance hierarchy you'll probably find that much more memory is being wasted, and the effect of it is not insigificant. At some point you'll find that the cost of not thinking about this issue is too high to bear.
Yet they couldn't find a better example for their rant about how awful it is.
I have found this blog post to be a waste of my morning time.
I would start with your heading, it makes no sense!