3 ms·
This article seems to imply without coming out and saying it that Alan has inflated his own historical importance or claimed to invent things he didn't. But any
by neonate 7y ago
This article seems to imply without coming out and saying it that Alan has inflated his own historical importance or claimed to invent things he didn't. But anyone familiar with even a small portion of his writing and speaking knows how eagerly and thoroughly he gives credit to others, including Nygaard and Dahl. A couple out-of-context quotes picked out of 50+ years of work don't count for much when the overall record is obvious and clear. Therefore, what a silly molehill. There's no controversy here, why create it?
- nudq 7y ago> There's no controversy here Maybe you missed it. A lot of controversy over what Kay said, when he said it, how much "jurisdiction" he has over the use of the word "Object" by others, how often he gets to amend the definition of OOP, etc, etc... was on display recently. I understood the post by Wayne as a reaction to this recent outbreak of an ongoing controversy.
- shalabhc 7y agoI'm not sure the article is implying anything about Alan. Hard to tell, there seems to be something missing in the piece. But one thing the article does argue about is what can and cannot be called OOP. It seems completely reasonable to me to refer to Java, Python and similar languages as OOP languages. That is the current widely accepted meaning of the term (even though these languages might be more like Simula than Smalltalk). It also seems reasonable to say that Kay's original ideas around OOP and their evolution and refinement (not sure if we can call it a definition) overlapped with these, but were on a different trajectory. One that perhaps has not been explored extensively.