3 ms·

Well, I'll be that guy, I don't care what inspired Bjarne, Simula created the idea of an object, but it wasn't until Smalltalk that object orientation became a

Well, I'll be that guy, I don't care what inspired Bjarne, Simula created the idea of an object, but it wasn't until Smalltalk that object orientation became a paradigm: Smalltalk created OO, not Simula. Object != Object Orientation, Simula was and is a procedural language with objects bolted on after the fact. C# is a Java clone so I need only address your Java misstatement, Java was far more influenced by Objective C and Smalltalk than by C++ as far as OO goes; it looked to C++ only for syntax. Java is semantically a direct descendant of Smalltalk and was inspired directly by Smalltalk as both of its creators knew Smalltalk and Objective C (another Smalltalk derivative). [1] Direct from the co-creator of java not to mention that Gosling himself was a Smalltalker. So no, what we know as modern OO came directly from Smalltalk. [1] https://cs.gmu.edu/~sean/stuff/java-objc.html https://cs.gmu.edu/~sean/stuff/java-objc.html

int_19h 9y ago
If you look at the actual semantics of classes and objects in C++ and Java, they're arguably closer to Simula than they are to Smalltalk. In C++, this is even more evident by the fact that even some of the syntax is reused, such as "virtual" (although in Simula it originally meant what we today call "abstract"). The difference between the two is that Smalltalk methods semantics are message passing. In Simula, method calls are just that, function calls generalized to have a receiver. And Java follows that pattern. If Java was a direct descendant of Smalltalk, it would look a lot different. For one thing, it would have a lot less syntax baked into the language, and a lot more closures, from the get go.
- gnaritas 9y ago
  I just provided direct quotes from one of the creators of Java, sorry but you're simply wrong to argue you know better what inspired them than they did. Java is a decedent of Smalltalk via Objective C, that is simply a fact. It's well known and accepted they took syntax from C++ as deliberate attempt to entice C++ programmers into Java, that is not evidence they didn't base their inspiration on Smalltalk. And I quote.. > When I left Sun to go to NeXT, I thought Objective-C was the coolest thing since sliced bread, and I hated C++. So, naturally when I stayed to start the eventually) Java project, Obj-C had a big influence. James Gosling, being much older than I was, he had lots of experience with SmallTalk and Simula68, which we also borrowed from liberally.
  - cestith 9y ago
    Perhaps what inspired them and what their creation most resembles are not necessarily the same thing. It would do some good if both you and your parent poster could agree or disagree with that statement.
    - int_19h 9y ago
      Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind. Regardless of what inspired the development of Java (and as this quote makes clear, both Smalltalk and Simula were on the list), the result clearly bears more semblance to Simula. A relatively simple mental exercise to prove the point is to look at various Simula and Smalltalk constructs, and see how well they map to Java (1.0) constructs. For Simula, you'll find a nearly 1:1 correspondence on syntax alone, with nested functions being the primary pain point. With Smalltalk, you'd stumble as soon as you run into the first block.
flavio81 9y ago
Java was far more influenced by Objective C and Smalltalk than by C++ as far as OO goes Objective-C is message-passing, Java and C++ are not.
- pjmlp 9y ago
  You apparently don't know Java's history. To start Java's interfaces are loosey based on Objective-C protocols. As for the rest, https://cs.gmu.edu/~sean/stuff/java-objc.html https://cs.gmu.edu/~sean/stuff/java-objc.html

int_19h 9y ago

If you look at the actual semantics of classes and objects in C++ and Java, they're arguably closer to Simula than they are to Smalltalk. In C++, this is even more evident by the fact that even some of the syntax is reused, such as "virtual" (although in Simula it originally meant what we today call "abstract"). The difference between the two is that Smalltalk methods semantics are message passing. In Simula, method calls are just that, function calls generalized to have a receiver. And Java follows that pattern. If Java was a direct descendant of Smalltalk, it would look a lot different. For one thing, it would have a lot less syntax baked into the language, and a lot more closures, from the get go.

gnaritas 9y ago
I just provided direct quotes from one of the creators of Java, sorry but you're simply wrong to argue you know better what inspired them than they did. Java is a decedent of Smalltalk via Objective C, that is simply a fact. It's well known and accepted they took syntax from C++ as deliberate attempt to entice C++ programmers into Java, that is not evidence they didn't base their inspiration on Smalltalk. And I quote.. > When I left Sun to go to NeXT, I thought Objective-C was the coolest thing since sliced bread, and I hated C++. So, naturally when I stayed to start the eventually) Java project, Obj-C had a big influence. James Gosling, being much older than I was, he had lots of experience with SmallTalk and Simula68, which we also borrowed from liberally.
- cestith 9y ago
  Perhaps what inspired them and what their creation most resembles are not necessarily the same thing. It would do some good if both you and your parent poster could agree or disagree with that statement.
  - int_19h 9y ago
    Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind. Regardless of what inspired the development of Java (and as this quote makes clear, both Smalltalk and Simula were on the list), the result clearly bears more semblance to Simula. A relatively simple mental exercise to prove the point is to look at various Simula and Smalltalk constructs, and see how well they map to Java (1.0) constructs. For Simula, you'll find a nearly 1:1 correspondence on syntax alone, with nested functions being the primary pain point. With Smalltalk, you'd stumble as soon as you run into the first block.

flavio81 9y ago

Java was far more influenced by Objective C and Smalltalk than by C++ as far as OO goes Objective-C is message-passing, Java and C++ are not.

pjmlp 9y ago
You apparently don't know Java's history. To start Java's interfaces are loosey based on Objective-C protocols. As for the rest, https://cs.gmu.edu/~sean/stuff/java-objc.html https://cs.gmu.edu/~sean/stuff/java-objc.html