4 ms·
dont forget inheritance. its either orthogonal or essential to what it means to be 'object oriented' depending on who you are talking to.
by convolvatron 8y ago
dont forget inheritance. its either orthogonal or essential to what it means to be 'object oriented' depending on who you are talking to.
- bunderbunder 8y agoI haven't, but, at least insofar as my thinking has developed (and insofar as Erlang supports it), the question of inheritance is more orthogonal than essential to the specific point I was trying to make. And failed to state clearly, so here it is: This essay is right, and Armstrong is also right when he said "Erlang might be the only object-oriented language". The tension there isn't, at the root, because Armstrong was confused about what OOP is really about; it's because OOP itself was (and is) confused about what OOP is really about. That said, I would also argue that, like "object", "inheritance" is a word that can describe many distinct concepts, that and here, too, OOP's intellectual traditions create a muddle by conflating them.
- reallydude 8y ago> dont forget inheritance Inheritance is a limited convention to do mixins. Including it in the abstract idea of object oriented programming is harmful, other than in reference to the ugly history of "Classical OOP" or "Non-Kay OOP" as you like.