> I'd love to see if in 50 years we're closer to Smalltalk, Haskell, or something completely different. I guess in my mind FP and OO are orthogonal. If I write

> I'd love to see if in 50 years we're closer to Smalltalk, Haskell, or something completely different. I guess in my mind FP and OO are orthogonal. If I write an immutable object and I send it messages that are referentially transparent, am I not doing both? Would it help FP people if they thought of such objects as "a record of partially applied functions"? So I hope both. I'd love if there was a statically typed, high level pure OO language without all the cruft of Scala or C#. Maybe I have to wait for the next programming fashion cycle for that to happen. > Thanks for posting your feeling on OO. In some ways I've always felt very restricted writing OO (even in Python), but learning Smalltalk is making me see it from an entirely different perspective. I often wonder if I need to coin a better term for "OO" for what I am talking about. Alan Kays whole schtick was that objects contained both data and procedures, but by combining them they became something new, and more than just the sum of their parts. That's the powerful idea to me. But language changes, and OO in 2017 just means "Java".