sdfsdfs34dfsdf

That's quite the thing to bring up. Wonderful.

So you say an object is like a computation stretched over time and a function that same computation but compressed into a single invocation? Like an object is a computation whose execution is suspended between messages? I can see how that ties closures, co-routines, etc together. They are all machinery to preserve execution state across time.

Generally you could say computation is traversal through a space of states and in that frame objects expose the intermediate states, the guts so to speak, and functions hide them and only expose the in-out mapping.

I feel these are two poles of some deeper principle. Ah man, I'm not well-read enough to go further than this. I kind of worry why most developers are not deeply familiar with this material because these things will inform many foundational choices we make in system architecture and we'd definitely could use some better shared vocabulary and argumentative machinery than mere opinions and "that's how we always do it".

Because content is orthogonal to form. Development at its core is virtually pure content. The form, the fonts, the graphics, the "pixels". It's noise with regards to the task at hand. It's not useless, because surely we have eyes and need to witness text on the screen (for now), but it is orthogonal to the main axis of resistance we are trying to overcome (for which we get paid).

People that don't understand the separation between content and form cannot separate between data and rendering, between models and views. They stuff JS in CSS and CSS in databases.

In short, they make shitty architects and are to be shunned from programming important software in general. No offense.

If you are not in an environment where it is being actively used it is not something you'll pick up. Not every programmer is on HN or being cool with blogs etc. I agree not knowing about source control at all is a .. different matter. Also, 20 years is less impressive once you subtract the time it wasn't popular. Even if it was 20 years, it is still not impressive. Perhaps if you are 15-30, but to older folks it's like a drop in the bucket.

Many people are not familiar with "git" and don't have to be. Picking up "git" is a one afternoon type of thing but the parent did not mention timelines. It was just about "knowing" git and I pushed back on that.

There are so, so many tools you guys on here find indispensable that don't actually get used by vast swaths of people in the field. I sometimes wonder where all you guys work.

> "small town" in "Southern Europe"

I've highlighted the two main issues you are currently experiencing.

That's more ageism than anything else. I mean surely real "programmers" know the new hotness "ghsfgusdfu", right? How could you live without?

I know companies running on SVN and they're fine. In fact, it's a better fit for them. Yes, Git is not always superior.

I'll give you a helpful concept to navigate these issues: "Cargo culting refers to the practice of imitating the superficial aspects of a process or practice without understanding the underlying logic or reasons behind it. This phenomenon is often seen in software development, where developers may adopt certain coding styles or methodologies without grasping their true purpose."

One is that it solves all problems once instead of various times in various levels of quality on various types of systems. Windows, GTK, Qt, FLTK, [100 others].. not to mention most "native UI framework" delegate to the underlying OS so they don't "solve" anything.

That's super interesting. Thank you for that.

I believe what's missing is not just data. That'd only grant it capabilities that upgrade it to a "record" type of entity. I believe an OOP object is more than a record. It's missing behavior triggered by messages. For an object to pass or receive a message we need to have a model of a message and that requires the notion of a sender and receiver, both objects again. Seems circular, but I'm sure it could be made to work if you properly define everything. Anyway, to my mind perhaps the minimal model of an object is not at all _one object_ but a _relation_ between two or more objects showcasing the minimal "message passing" semantics.

Weird take, but inheritance could be included if you accept something can inherit from itself. A is a type of A, I mean it doesn't strike me as wrong, but it is unconventional.