To summarize the link "CLOS is not as limited in its functionality as the lame language I learned first (i.e., Java, C++, etc.) and since the lame language I le

To summarize the link "CLOS is not as limited in its functionality as the lame language I learned first (i.e., Java, C++, etc.) and since the lame language I learned first is the very definition of OO, CLOS isn't OO." Such people see OO principally as a form of bondage. The link focuses heavily on encapsulation (i.e., restricting the programmer) rather than flexibility and capability (i.e., empowering the programmer). You can have any degree of encapsulation and restriction you want with CLOS (see the responses in the link for precisely how). But you can't have any degree of freedom and power you want in Java, etc. Defining OO by how much your language limits programmer power and flexibility is a painful mistake.