undefined

points

[-]

I have the opposite experience. Goes to show the difference between people.

I've always had trouble internalizing the "physics" of physics or chemistry, as if it were all super arbitrary and there was no order to it.

Computation and maths on the other hand just click with me. Philosophy as well btw.

I guess I deal better with handling completely abstract information and processes and when they clash with the real world I have a harder time reconciling.

by dragochat2 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

your "physics" grounding is exactly why it feels so odd - software is by its nature anti-physicalist

math and logic are closer to a basis for software abstraction - but they were scary to business people so a "fake language" was invented atop them - you have "objects" that don't actually exist as objects, they are just "type based dispatch/selection mechanism for functions", "classes" that are firstly "producers of things and holders of common implementation" and only secondarily also work to "group together classes of objects"

by jeltz2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I feel that is a bit of a false history. OOP was invented by people trying to simulate physical systems, e.g. Stroustup, the Simula people and their contemporaries not business people. Arguably it was popularized later by business people and enterprise Java developers. But that happened way later.

I do not think OOP ever really worked out well as can be evidenced by it no longer being as popular and people having almost entirely abandoned "Cat > Animal > Object" inheritance hierarchies.