>>14042502

>>14042513

>>14042514

>>14042524

The good colleges that teach computer programming suck at it to begin wit.

The modern programming languages being pushed by big tech are overly complex monstrosities which are meant to hamper our technological development.

Historically speaking we can see this with the ADA programming language, which was so large it included Pascal inside of it and never caught on outside of the US defense industry.

Object Oriented Programming is a deep state effort to foist over complexity upon the programming world. Java, C++, Rust, Ojbective C, C#. The absurdity that data directly should be tied to function leads them to continually add functionality to solve problems that using objects itself creates.

All of them developed by Big Tech, or the Big tech of their era.

The best programming languages are the ones which are the simplest and without objects.

>>14042686

>OOP can make a language safe, but only if the language is carefully designed and not destroyed by asshattery.

Even this is false.

C for example, is a perfectly fine language; it is the operating system interface which makes it dangerous. Memory safe versions of C do exist, we just don't get to have them.

>>14042717

Then you will have a long way to go.

>>14042738

My neighbor likes to take his table saw out into the driveway in the morning.

>>14042751

Generally I prefer simply using a structure or a context when I need to keep data together; for languages that don't have one I use a hash.

Function pointers themselves aren't needed very often.

For memory management I prefer the memory pool (like the one used by libapr for example) There are plenty of libraries out there that provide them.