Conveniently, nature has provided us with another carbon sequestration method that has a lot of other benefits, ranging from being a good building material, to helping regulate the local temperature: trees.

The people in the picture are so used to working with assembly language, that even though they know the average person doesn’t know much about assembly, they assume the average person knows a little, which is already way more than the average person actually knows.

If you’ve got a better plan I’m all ears, but I’ve never seen any actual alternative proposed.

You don’t get to make a “US Defaultism” comment after implying you had the right to vote in the U.S. election.

No

At that point you “die” every time you fall asleep.

Dramatized clickbait headline.

What the article actually says is more like “we might be able to revive you if not too many if your cells have died, even if your heart and brain seem to have stopped.”

AKA they are working on a next tier of CPR.

While everything else everyone said is true, to some extent there has been code leaked or decompiled of internal iOS libraries. That code is sometimes used in things like jailbreaking iPhones or making jailbroken-only apps.

If by “adversary” you mean a hacker, secure software should remain secure even if your adversary has your full source code.

That is a large part of coding

Some people use both

Say I’m doing what you describe, operating on the same data with different functions, if written properly couldn’t a program do this even without a class structure to it? 🤔

Yeah thats kinda where the first object oriented programming came from. In C (which doesn’t have classes) you define a struct (an arrangement of data in memory, kinda like a named tuple in Python), and then you write functions to manipulate those structs.

For example, multiplying two complex vectors might look like:

ComplexVectorMultiply(myVectorA, myVectorB, &myOutputVector, length);

Programmers decided it would be a lot more readable if you could write code that looked like:

myOutputVector = myVectorA.multiply(myVectorB);

Or even just;

myOutputVector = myVectorA * myVectorB;

(This last iteration is an example of “operator overloading”).

So yes, you can work entirely without classes, and that’s kinda how classes work under the hood. Fundamentally object oriented programming is just an organizational tool to help you write more readable and more concise code.

To add to this, there are kinda two main use cases for OOP. One is simply organizing your code by having a bunch of operations that could be performed on the same data be expressed as an object with different functions you could apply.

The other use case is when you have two different data types where it makes sense to perform the same operation but with slight differences in behavior.

For example, if you have a “real number” data type and a “complex number” data type, you could write classes for these data types that support basic arithmetic operations defined by a “numeric” superclass, and then write a matrix class that works for either data type automatically.