> We should stop using the term "Object Oriented". I see two reasons: first, "OO" means too many things to too many people. Second, the most popular definition

> We should stop using the term "Object Oriented". I see two reasons: first, "OO" means too many things to too many people. Second, the most popular definition of OO is essentially about syntactic sugar. 1, there is a good enough concensus: would people not broadly agree that C is not really, and that Ruby is, and that OCaml is a bit, and so on? 2, you cannot simply dismiss something as syntactic sugar. Representation for humans is half of the whole purpose of programming languages.