3 ms·
> I'm not convinced there's any language that can be considered "completely object-oriented"; Maybe Smalltalk? > I might just have a more liberal than average
by wtetzner 9y ago
> I'm not convinced there's any language that can be considered "completely object-oriented";
Maybe Smalltalk?
> I might just have a more liberal than average interpretation of what OO means, though.
I think the problem is that there's no clear definition of OO, and at some point the term becomes meaningless.