> Really depends on what is your definition of "OOP" here I smell a no-true-scotsman incoming.. >> Both Smalltalk and Erlang make use of OOP the way it was or

> Really depends on what is your definition of "OOP" here I smell a no-true-scotsman incoming.. >> Both Smalltalk and Erlang make use of OOP the way it was originally intended by its inventor, Alan Kay. > ah, the bad definition of OOP then. Message-based OOP is usually considered to be superior to inheritance by even OOP advocates, and even composition-based OOP by many. I don't see your evidence for "bad definition of OOP". >Hint : most C apis that look like > foo* foo_create(void); > int foo_get_bananas(foo); > void foo_print(foo, int, int); > void foo_free(foo); > > are OOP, not procedural. They just lack the syntax sugar. Not every API that uses a struct is OOP. If your foos use inheritance, virtual dispatch etc, then yes it's OOP. But usually it's just something like a struct to store state instead of having globals or multiple parameters even. >> Linus Torvalds is widely known for his open criticism of C++ and OOP. > yet he went on doing C++ for user-space code : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON0A1dsQOV0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON0A1dsQOV0 He's a pragmatist first and foremost, and the GUI libraries he uses (Qt) and the programmers that work on GUI code use C++, he said. I doubt he would write his own GUI framework in C++.