26

"I don't see women as objects, each woman is in a class of their own! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"

- People who have no fucking clue how OOP works

Objects are instantiations of classes, you poor, retarded bastards. You saw those two words while skimming your 1st year college textbook, made this joke, promptly changed to some useless English degree because you cried after your "hello world" program didn't run, and never looked back to see the damage you had done.

I know the joke is the word play but word play word play puns are retarded anyways. Everything about this pun is awful.

Comments
  • 6
    Yes, it is a word play, that's exactly what it is.
  • 6
    It's a shitty joke in any form, people should stop making it. Usually it's socially awkward nerds who have no chance with ladies that spew shit like that.
  • 1
    Thought a very similar thought the moment I saw that image
  • 1
    I saw one that used object and struct, instead of object and class. I was slightly amused for a moment because the joke then actually made a tiny bit more sense.

    But that wasn't enough to make the joke truly funny.
  • 0
    Why so mad, bruh?

    The joke is funny.

    Word play is fun.

    Was your cat just run over, or did you run out of your favourite cereal this morning?

    Objects are indeed instances of classes - on some langs.

    The joke suggests that rather than being seen as instances of the same class, reductive towards women, they are seen as individual classes, ironic due to being distinct but still reductive.

    It's certainly not chauvinistic. It's a fucking harmless pun.
  • 1
    I think every women is a subclass of the women class
  • 0
    @Minion no, they're instances.
  • 0
    I agree.
    It feels god awful when a dev pun is technically incorrect.

    By itself, it's like "hey guys, <programming joke> amirite?" expecting a "ha ha ha, i program too" response, it's just pandering.
    and then an extra layer of not even being technically correct.

    "its like pukin on a pile of shit"
Add Comment