Thing Based Programming

I have contemplated trolling software engineers by re-naming “object oriented programming”, and claiming I have made a major discovery, Thing Based Programming.

I would criticize “object oriented” as actually concerning itself more with “classes”. After all, no “objects” are defined. Then, I would go on to outline “Thing Based Programming”, where a programmer would define “Concepts” (with some suitably vague syntax).

“Concept” would obviously be completely superior to “classes”, because concepts can be “realized” using different modalities, or “Things”. Classes only allow membership, as witnessed by all the discussion of “IsA” and “HasA” in OOP circles. Concepts can share Subconcepts with each other where “classes” cannot. It also logically follows that a Thing can embody more than one Concept.

This would all have been explained with ultra-vague hand waving. After removing the fig leaf of verbiage, it should be obvious that all I’ve done is re-invent, or maybe re-name, Object Oriented Programming.

I would have to find a suitable forum for this trolling, one that’s open to new posters, but still stuffy enough that something like this would upset them.