> OOP has nothing to do with classes, inheritance, especially multiple inheritance. It's about programming objects that communicate with each other. That is th

> OOP has nothing to do with classes, inheritance, especially multiple inheritance. It's about programming objects that communicate with each other. That is the Alan Kay definition. I'm not sure I'd claim that is the colloquial, universal understanding of OOP apart from the HN crowd, though. (ask a LOB programmer what OOP is and observe what they say). I rather like the Alan Kay definition myself, but that is rather like having a Many Worlds understanding of quantum mechanics; Entirely consistent and arguably "correct", but not universally shared among practitioners. We should refine our language (e.g. COP), but it would be revisionist to ignore what the 90's and 00's understanding of the definition would be. I think it would be even more of a stretch to say that prototypal languages (javascript) are more OOP than non-prototypal languages, unless of course one is being a bit reductionist.