On Mon, Sep 01, 2025 at 09:10:24PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> David Niklas via Dng said on Mon, 1 Sep 2025 19:22:43 -0400
>
> >On Mon, 1 Sep 2025 17:16:56 +0100
> >ael <witwall3@???> wrote:
>
> >In fact, Linus Torvalds himself said he did not want object oriented
> >C++ code in the Linux Kernel. Now we're doing OO with rust!
>
> I quote from the Google AI's answer to "is rust an oop language?"
>
> "Rust does not fully adhere to the traditional definition of an
> object-oriented programming (OOP) language, particularly due to its
> lack of class-based inheritance. While it offers features that allow
> for object-like structures and behaviors, it achieves these through
> different mechanisms. Here's a breakdown: Encapsulation and
> Polymorphism: . Rust supports encapsulation through its module system
> and the pub keyword, controlling visibility of data and functions. It
> also achieves polymorphism through traits, which are similar to
> interfaces in other languages, allowing different types to implement a
> common set of behaviors. This enables dynamic dispatch and generic
> programming. Lack of Inheritance: . Unlike traditional OOP languages
> like Java or C++, Rust does not have class inheritance where one struct
> can inherit data fields and method implementations directly from
> another. Instead, Rust emphasizes composition over inheritance, where
> you embed structs within other structs to combine functionality.
> Structs and impl blocks: . Rust uses structs to define data structures,
> and impl blocks to associate methods with those structs. This provides
> a way to define data and associated behavior, similar to objects in
> OOP. In essence, Rust provides powerful tools to model data and
> encapsulate functionality in a way that can feel familiar to OOP
> developers, but it does so without relying on the inheritance hierarchy
> that is central to classical OOP. Some might describe it as an
> "object-based" language rather than strictly "object-oriented."

Your description makes it sound a lot like Modula 3.

>
> I learned the rudiments of Rust a couple months ago, and the preceding
> description matches my memory of Rust. Phillipe Kahn's definition of
> OOP is 1) Encapsulation, 2) Inheritance, and 3) Polymorphism. As far as
> encapsulation, every language but assembler, Cobol, and Cshell gives
> you an easy means for encapsulation, some more than others. Rust
> doesn't have inheritance. Relationships can be "has a", but not "is a".
> As far as polymorphism, Rust can achieve polymorphism with traits and
> impl, etc. As I remember, traits have no defaults, so you have to
> define everything, removing a lot of chance to make mistakes.
>
> There may be problems with replacing C with Rust in the Linux kernel,
> but I don't think surrendering to OOP is one of them.
>
> SteveT
>
> Steve Litt
>
> http://444domains.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> Manage your subscription: https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
> Archive: https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/list/dng.en.html