4 ms·

The fundamental ideas of OOP are pervasive data privacy and the consequent synchronization via message passing. Now, many OO languages have badly butchered that

The fundamental ideas of OOP are pervasive data privacy and the consequent synchronization via message passing. Now, many OO languages have badly butchered that, but that is the idea, as in Smalltalk: Objects are opaque participants in a colloquy. I'm not sure where you got "the majority disagree with your definition of the term" when I didn't even attempt to define the term until this reply! Or why you key on the word "orthogonal" which is in the parent of my comment, and certainly is imprecise: A better description would be, OOP holds no exclusive claim to these ideas. We don't all despise OOP, but rather the false notion that it is a "silver bullet." I quite like well done OOP with expressive types. I'd be irritated by you linking to Wikipedia articles for "Programming paradigm" and OOP except they're mobile links, which means you're getting all in a hissy on the go, and that's sorta cute.

halter73 9y ago
I probably put too much stock in the "As is" at the beginning of your post. A hissy is a good description of my last comment lol. I was getting pretty annoyed at people claiming that my understanding of OOP is wrong. I don't think OOP should be this incomprehensible thing. I now understand that you just meant that not all encapsulation is OOP. I certainly agree there. Cheers.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
unscaled 9y ago
OOP does not start with Smalltalk, but rather with Simula 67 a decade earlier. Simula 67 - not Smalltalk - was the main force that drove Bjarne Stroustrup to extend C into C++ and the rest history: While Smalltalk did enjoy a period of mild popularity in the late 80s early 90s and went on to influence other languages like Objective C and Ruby, the mainstream of OOP was defined by C++ and later Java. These languages viewed focused on statically determined method dispatch rather than message-passing, but this is a feature of their older lineage rather than the butchering of the original pristine form of OOP which never was.

halter73 9y ago

I probably put too much stock in the "As is" at the beginning of your post. A hissy is a good description of my last comment lol. I was getting pretty annoyed at people claiming that my understanding of OOP is wrong. I don't think OOP should be this incomprehensible thing. I now understand that you just meant that not all encapsulation is OOP. I certainly agree there. Cheers.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

unscaled 9y ago

OOP does not start with Smalltalk, but rather with Simula 67 a decade earlier. Simula 67 - not Smalltalk - was the main force that drove Bjarne Stroustrup to extend C into C++ and the rest history: While Smalltalk did enjoy a period of mild popularity in the late 80s early 90s and went on to influence other languages like Objective C and Ruby, the mainstream of OOP was defined by C++ and later Java. These languages viewed focused on statically determined method dispatch rather than message-passing, but this is a feature of their older lineage rather than the butchering of the original pristine form of OOP which never was.