> Not that Kay's OO isn't important - it is. It's just hardly ever relevant to the actual discussion. Having a debate over inheritance without a consensual def

> Not that Kay's OO isn't important - it is. It's just hardly ever relevant to the actual discussion. Having a debate over inheritance without a consensual definition of OO is gonna lead us nowhere. The word "OO" has been a selling buzzword for several decades. Which means our best bet in getting a sensible definition is to pick the original one. This is why we keep bringing up "Kay's OO" (which also is, by the way, Coplien's OO, Reenskaugh's, Dave West's ...)