4 ms·
But it is not an opinion. There is no universally accepted definition of OO let alone a formal, axiomatic definition, and that makes it ill-defined. If you dis
by exDM69 9y ago
But it is not an opinion. There is no universally accepted definition of OO let alone a formal, axiomatic definition, and that makes it ill-defined.
If you disagree, point to a definition of OO that you think is "correct".
- Ace17 9y agoI suggest to look at Alan Kay's definition, since he's the one who invented the term "object oriented". http://www.purl.org/stefan_ram/pub/doc_kay_oop_en http://www.purl.org/stefan_ram/pub/doc_kay_oop_en
- exDM69 9y agoWell, Alan Kay's definition is just one definition and as evidenced by the rest of this thread, it's far from being universally accepted and definitely not the definition used in the mainstream "OO" languages. Further, that email thread is far from being a formal definition. In that email there's a pointer to a ISO standard doc, but that's hardly authoritative either. It seems like every language (and every programmer) has their own idea of OO, which is why I consider it quite apt to call it "ill-defined". That's not to say that OO programming itself is bad, more that the term "OO" is bad.
- eksemplar 9y agoI'm not disputing the opinion, rather the fact that the author doesn't document why the opinion is there. Maybe the author went through research on the subject and found a consensus, but maybe not.