3 ms·
A definition of OO trivial enough to make everything OO isn't very useful. That's why inheritance, encapsulation etc. are often included, to mark the difference
by xorcist 9y ago
A definition of OO trivial enough to make everything OO isn't very useful. That's why inheritance, encapsulation etc. are often included, to mark the difference against what was before.
- jcelerier 9y agoBut there is an infinite spectrum of languages that mix and match various features of what you call "OO" at diverse degrees, making it meaningless to include all of these in the definition. The most famous ones tended to bundle them all which led to the misappropriation but really, there's no problem with simple concepts. We don't have to find names for everything: it's much clearer to say "language Foobar makes immutable values first-class and allows interface inheritance and delegation" than "language Foobar is FP/OO/whatever seems to be most predominant when looking at the hello world in such language".